michigan public safety communications interoper …...michigan public safety communications...

Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board Meeting Agenda

September 12, 2017, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. MSP HQ, Centennial Room, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale, MI 48821

Dial In # 888-278-0296 Access Code: 8855666#

To join AT&T Connect Conference: https://connect4.uc.att.com/stateofmichigan/meet/?ExEventID=88855666

I. Call to Order A. Welcome – Vice Board Chair Brad Stoddard

II. Roll Call A. Welcome members

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes A. June 20, 2017 meeting

IV. Approval of Meeting Agenda

V. Public Comment A. Open the floor for any public comment

VI. Communications A. Pending Action – Support Letter for NextGen 911 funding

VII. Workgroup Reports A. Communications Unit Workgroup

1. Workgroup Update 2. Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP) 2017 revision

B. Public Safety Broadband Workgroup

1. Workgroup Update – Michigan Opt-In Decision August 3rd,2017 2. Program Update 3. Regional/National Activities/News 4. SCIP Items

C. Auxcomm Workgroup

1. Workgroup Update 2. SCIP Items

D. Emergency Alert System (EAS) & Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Workgroup 1. Workgroup Update 2. SCIP Items

VIII. Old Business A. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications

1. SAFECOM nationwide survey, Nationwide Communications Baseline Assessment https://www.dhs.gov/safecome/sns

https://connect4.uc.att.com/stateofmichigan/meet/?ExEventID=88855666

https://www.dhs.gov/safecome/sns





B. Support of State NextGen 911 funding bills HB4651 and SB 400 – communications from Board 6/20: Dire time for SNC funding. Proposing the Board draft a letter to support this 911 legislation. File with the State 911 Office and legislators themselves.

C. FirstNet informational, workgroup efforts and State Plan activities – communications from Board 6/20: Now is the time for Board to send communication to the fraternal organizations, MDOT and EMHSD that FirstNet is here and send them the portal. FirstNet video dissemination.

IX. New Business

A. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications * FEMA Update

X. Technology Update: Director, MPSCS A. MPSCS System

1. MPSCS Lifecycle Remediation Project Status – need update from Theron a) Phase 3 towards completion 4th quarter 2017 b) Phase 4 pre-planning - South East Michigan. Majority of subsystems are simulcast and most populated area of the State. Activity to start Fall 2017 and transition Spring of 2018 and Spring 2019

2. 800 MHz Pager adoption a) 2187 Pagers on system – added 724 in last quarter, 111 agencies live – added 66

in last quarter, 9 agencies testing, 99 agencies pending b) St. Clair regarding MPSCS Pager issues - reported resolved by St. Clair Fire Service members

3. Counties/Agencies meeting with/discussion of joining MPSCS a) None this quarter

XI. Good of the Order A. Comments by the Board Members

XII. Meeting dates A. 2017 Dates – February 7, March 14, June 13 (rescheduled to June 20), September 12, and

December 12

XIII. Adjournment – Next meeting date is proposed for Tuesday, December 12, 2017, Michigan State Police HQ, Centennial Room, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale, MI at 2:00 p.m.

Date Future Agenda Topics TBD Identification and Implementation of Best Practices (governance, policy, strategic vision, technology)


Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board Meeting Minutes

June 20, 2017, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. MSP HQ, 1917 Room, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale, MI 48821

I. Call to Order A. Welcome – Board Chair Colonel Etue The meeting of the Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board was called to order by Chair Colonel Etue on Tuesday, June 20th at 2:02pm.

II. Roll Call A. Welcome members The following Board Members were present: Col. Kriste Etue, Brad Stoddard, Kenneth Morris, Bryce Tracy, Inspector Chris Bush for Capt. Chris Kelenske, Jerry Ellsworth (for Dr. Jacqueline Scott), Michelle LaJoye-Young, Chief Troy Stern, Chief Adam Carroll (phone), Strickland for Jeromie Golab, Eileen Phifer, Kevin Sehlmeyer, Eddie Washington Absent were: Greg Janik, , Chief Gary Hagler Guests were: Pam Matelski, Jim Jarvis, Kate Jannereth, Ron Bush, John McDonough, Brianna Briggs

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes A. March 14, 2017 meeting It was moved by Bryce Tracy and seconded by Michelle LaJoye-Young to approve the March 14, 2017 meeting minutes. Motion was carried.

IV. Approval of Meeting Agenda All in favor was called and no one opposed.

V. Public Comment There was no public comment.

VI. Communications Board has issued no communications.

VII. Workgroup Reports A. Communications Unit Workgroup

1. Workgroup Update Working through Continuing Education Credits. Plan coming to the Board in the future for approval. Credentialing is being reviewed with EMHSD and Auxcomm. A lot of local support for this effort in order to ID credentialed assets. MIFOG – user friendly possible mobile device application coming soon. Working on Communication Asset typing with EMHSD – Site on Wheels, radio caches, etc. Import into MICIMS. Brad thanked EMHSD for support with asset typing. Two COML classes and one COMT class scheduled. 30 people through statewide recognition plus 9 today. Requesting Auxcomm training this fall. 2. Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP) 2017 revision Face-to-face meeting in September.

B. Public Safety Broadband Workgroup 1. Workgroup Update ATT was selected March 30. Unexpected benefits:



All benefits will be across the entire network. 99% of population will be covered immediately. Guaranteed priority access for public safety. 24/7 US based helpdesk for Public Safety Public Safety Application Store

2. Program Update Timeline:

June19th Governor’s portal opened. June 27th Opening a marketing portal to the public. Looking for feedback from public safety entities. Comments due by July 14th. September 15th Final State plan. Governor will then have 90 days to opt in/out.

3. Regional/National Activities/News Question from MDOT – is MDOT low priority within the public safety realm? They will be secondary like utilities. Primary are Police, Fire, EMS. Support agencies can become priority during an emergency. A task team is working on how Michigan wants to develop those processes and policies. Brad: FirstNet is looking for guidance from the user community on how registering a device as a first responder should work. Need to include EMHSD, MDOT, etc. Changes state-to-state. What about people who have a day job in public safety and also a volunteer fire fighter – how will that work? Public safety’s priority on bring your own device. What about concert venue with public safety officials attending and then a response is needed, who gets priority? Try not to discredit the unknown but to document them. ATT and FirstNet are open to adding sites now which wasn’t always the case. Possible deployable solution. C. Auxcomm Workgroup

1. Workgroup Update Michigan Merit Emergency Communications Plan - Still working on severe weather portion. EMHSD planner is happy with it. Participated in the Cook exercises. VHF foot print is extremely different at new SEOC so they will be looking at creating a library of 205s for each county. Trying to communicate to counties a realistic outline of what Auxcomm can do. Such as skills and availability. Power resilience survey will go live in the next few months. Annual EC conference at woodland campgrounds for Emergency Coordinators. 21 training events 19 exercises. D. Emergency Alert System (EAS) & Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)

Workgroup 1. Introduce Co-Chairs (Sgt. Ronald A. Bush, Berrien County Sheriff’s Department &

Brianna Briggs, Michigan State Police) 2. Workgroup Update

• Berrien County was first county to demonstrate IPAWS for FEMA evaluation successfully. • Meeting monthly for years under Auxcomm. • Not all counties have IPAWS. • Satellite radio, satellite TV, phones, devices all get notified at once. • Being a border county with Indiana has challenges. Berrien County has no local TV station and gets it

from Indiana which doesn’t have to broadcast warnings to Michigan. • Locals with EAS plan agreements with the media. Currently they only have to air Presidential messages. • Two people in each MSP region, EMHSD, National Guard, NOAA and media are being included. • Sent COMU WG SCIP items the EAS/IPAWS wants considered.



VIII. Old Business Col. Etue welcomed new State Fire Marshall Kevin Sehlmeyer to the Interoperability Board.

A. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications 1. SAFECOM nationwide survey, Nationwide Communications Baseline Assessment

https://www.dhs.gov/safecome/sns There is a possibility of grant funding attached to this survey by identifying need. Brad has offered to help provide answers surrounding the survey.

2. Canada/US cross border interoperability planning session to discuss cross border interoperability issues Buffalo, NY, June 20-21, 2017, two COMU WG members attending for Michigan

One member was unable to attend due to flight cancellations. There was a cross border work group in Windsor several years ago that lead to a LMR treaty. We are now looking into licensing equipment in either country. License frequencies along borders is difficult. FCC is looking to have ability to license frequencies in other countries.

IX. New Business

A. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications * FEMA Update Passed with no DHS representatives. B. Support of State NextGen 911 funding bills HB4651 and SB 400 – communications from Board Dire time for SNC funding. 911 is vital to the State of Michigan. Proposing the Board draft a letter to support this 911 legislation. File with the State 911 Office and legislators themselves. There was a call for motion to support which troy Stern supported. No further discussion. All in favor was called, no one opposed. Bryce to draft letter and get to Board. C. FirstNet informational, workgroup efforts and State Plan activities – communications from Board Now is the time for Board to send communication to the fraternal organizations, MDOT and EMHSD that FirstNet is here and send them the portal. Pam mentioned they have sent all the representatives communications regarding the state plan review, how to register and links to webinars. Michelle thought a plain English version with impact to entities and a second push from the Board would be helpful. Need to ensure locals test coverage and signal themselves because the maps are inaccurate. Motion from Brad to send letter to fraternal organizations. Ron Bush Seconded. All in favor, no one opposed.

X. Technology Update: Director, MPSCS A. MPSCS System

1. MPSCS Lifecycle Remediation Project Status a) Phase 3 underway – Eastern to Western UP. b) Phase 4 pre-planning – South East Michigan and simulcast systems and most populated area of the State. Activity to start spring of 2018.

2. 800 MHz Pager adoption a) 2187 Pagers on system – added 724 in last quarter, 111 agencies live – added 66

in last quarter, 9 agencies testing, 99 agencies pending

b) Recent article from St. Clair regarding MPSCS Pager issues http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/local/marine-city/2017/05/24/new/341705001/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The issue was coverage, not pager technology. Site in a box (mini site) may help provide coverage MPSCS working with Motorola to develop.

https://www.dhs.gov/safecome/sns

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/local/marine-city/2017/05/24/new/341705001/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/local/marine-city/2017/05/24/new/341705001/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



c) LED strobes are new technologies that have reduced energy costs and working with the vendor we ensured they were able to be seen with night vision.

3. Counties/Agencies meeting with/discussion of joining MPSCS a) Lake - meeting next Tuesday, June 27th.

a) Clinton County looking to co-locate in order to close a loop on the MPSCS. As a function we will turn on RF as well.

b) Oakland County has approved us partnering with them and the FBI to light up a site in Pontiac. Adam mentioned he had heard news Oakland might be looking at a new system. Brad said they will be releasing an RFP for a P25 compliant system that would be fully compliant with MPSCS.

c) University of Michigan is looking to partner with Washtenaw County.

XI. Good of the Order A. Comments by the Board Members

Bryce welcomed Fire Marshall Sehlmeyer.

XII. Meeting dates A. 2017 Dates – February 7, March 14, June 13 (rescheduled to June 20), September 12, and

December 12

XIII. Adjournment – Next meeting date is proposed for Tuesday, September 12, 2017, Michigan State Police HQ, Centennial Room, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale, MI at 2:00 p.m. It was moved by Bryce Tracy, seconded by Michelle LaJoye-Young to adjourn the meeting.

Date Future Agenda Topics TBD Review and recommendation to the Governor on the State Plan for FirstNet (Opt-In/Opt-Out) TBD Identification and Implementation of Best Practices (governance, policy, strategic vision, technology)

STATUS/UPDTAE OF CUURENT ACTIONS REPORT TO THE MPSCIB – MONTH YEAR – EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS) & INTEGRATED PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING SYSTEM (IPAWS) WORKGROUP

Interop Board Action Items

Identify actions or decisions the workgroup is requiring of the board

New Items

List items for update and awareness for the boards knowledge since the last quarterly report The workgroup will meet every other month, or as needed in between, on the 4th Thursday of the month. The last meeting was held on August 30. The next meeting is scheduled for October 26. A presentation was given at the 2017 Michigan Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference in Boyne Mountain on August 9th. This presentation included changes and update suggestions that can be made to emergency plans and procedures which identify the use of EAS and IPAWS in emergency messaging to the public. A live Nuclear Warning Message was sent to the FEMA Joint Interoperable Test Lab (JITC) showing how the message would be aired over multiple communication paths to the public.

What’s on the Horizon

Identify any work efforts, meetings, or information for upcoming activities the board should be aware of

We are setting up meetings with the Local and State Emergency Communications Committees in Indiana to discuss two topics. The first is the development of their First Informer program which credentials broadcast engineers for access to their transmitter sites during emergencies and how we can reproduce that successful program in Michigan. The second topic is to develop a formal process through a State to State agreement allowing Indiana media outlets to transmit EAS messages originating in Michigan back into Michigan and where applicable, vise-versa.

We are speaking at the annual MEMA conference to provide an update on the goals and objectives of the EAS/IPAWS work group. This will include the status of the RFP being developed for a State-wide EAS program and a discussion of the implementation of IPAWS in the county programs which is a new goal being included in the SCIP. A live presentation will include sending an alert message through the JITC lab to show the emergency managers the effectiveness of the system. EAS Lean Process Improvement (LPI) meetings will begin throughout the state in September and continue into October to develop business requirements for a statewide system. Capt. Kelenske, Insp. Bush, and Michelle Kuzera have been identified as sponsors for this process. Brianna Briggs will be the Project Team Leader.

Regional Reports – Going forward, prior to all meetings, regional representatives will be asked to provide an update on EAS/IPAWS discussions at the regional level. A template will be developed for reporting. Strategic Plan – The group provided recommendations relating to EAS/IPAWS for inclusion in SCIP. The strategy will be 24-36 months and will provide clear strategic goals and objectives.

Training and Exercises

Identify any training or exercises the workgroup has or will be participating in

Region 2 – The City of Detroit is working on a functional communications exercise at the casino. There is some opportunity for them to test their EAS/WEA messaging function through the JITC lab. More information to come on this as it becomes available. Region 5 – Training is being held for dispatchers on sirens and EAS messaging.

GEORGE W. ROMNEY BUILDING ● 111 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE ● LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 www.michigan.gov/dtmb ● (517) 373-0084

Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board Briefing September 13, 2016 CONSULTATION TASK TEAMS (CTT) In July, seven representatives from Michigan joined with teams from Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Minnesota to meet with FirstNet about managing the Quality of Service, Priority, and Preemption for first responders on the FirstNet network. After meeting with each region, FirstNet will compile and publish an overview of the feedback, slated for November 2016. This is the first of several CTT meetings, the next is designed to cover Local Control. FIRSTNET EXECUTIVE RELATIONSHIP MEETING On August 22, 2016, representatives from the Executive Office, DTMB and MSP leadership, and the MiPSB Program leads met with FirstNet CEO Mike Poth and key staff members. Discussion points included: programmatic updates from the State and FirstNet; status of the FirstNet network RFP; development and delivery of the Draft and Final State plans; and key factors to consider for the Governor to Opt-in or Opt-out of the FirstNet Plan. Poth laid out an aggressive schedule following the award of the network contract in November 2016. This is a sizeable contract and protests from non-selected bidders should be expected. The states will receive a Draft State Plan in March 2017, with a 45-60 day window to review and provide feedback. The states may request changes to the Draft Plan, however unless it is cost neutral, contract changes or additional functionality will be at the state’s expense. The Final State Plan is projected to be delivered to the Governor in May 2017, which begins the 90-day Opt-in/Opt-out decision period. Most components of the RFP were intentionally written as objective-based, however there are requirements to include a rural component in each phase of a four-phase buildout of the network over a five-year period (2018 – 2022). The contract also requires a 20% public safety customer base, with a substantial financial penalty to the vendor if this quota is not met. ALTERNATE BUSINESS PLAN While the State Plan schedule appears to be impractical as presented by FirstNet, Michigan needs to be prepared to evaluate and respond appropriately. The MiPSB Team is finalizing its stakeholder data collection efforts and developing the processes and criteria for evaluation of the Draft State Plan. We are preparing to issue a RFI for an alternate business plan to evaluate and validate the information provided in the Draft State Plan in order to be in position to provide a comprehensive recommendation for consideration of the Final State Plan. In addition, we are formalizing a non-disclosure agreement with Colorado to review their alternate business plan RFI and responses. NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION (NGA) TESTIMONY Mr. Jeffrey S. McLeod, Director of the Homeland Security and Public Safety Division, NGA’s Center for Best Practices, presented testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on the topic of “FirstNet Oversight: An Update on the Status of the Public Safety Broadband Network.” Mr. McLeod’s testimony focused on three critical issues: coverage, cost, and consultation. MiPSB concurs with the NGA’s position, and in July, provided additional comment on each topic as it relates to Michigan’s data collection and analysis efforts.

GEORGE W. ROMNEY BUILDING ● 111 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE ● LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 www.michigan.gov/dtmb ● (517) 373-0084

Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board Briefing September 13, 2016 – Page 2 NTIA STATE ALTERNATIVE PLAN PROGRAM (SAPP) MiPSB’s response to the NTIA published guidance and request for comment on the SAPP - Docket # 160706588-6588-01, is posted on the NTIA website. Key points include the timeline for the approval processes and concern that the states are not going to get the critical information required to make an informed Opt-in/Opt-out decision. MIPSB WORKGROUP CHARTER The Charter documents the purpose of the workgroup, membership structure, and membership roles and responsibilities. A draft was presented at the August 9, 2016, Workgroup Meeting, and adopted at the September 13, 2016, Meeting. The Workgroup will be led by two Workgroup Members acting as Co-Chair. The Co-Chairs are to be appointed by the MPSCIB with one of the Co-Chairs being a Member of the MPSCIB. Workgroup membership will consist of representatives recommended by the Co-Chairs, and appointed by their respective government entity stakeholders and/or fraternal organizations.

1. Michigan Department of Management and Budget (DTMB) 2. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 3. Michigan State Police (MSP) 4. Michigan Sheriff’s Association (MSA) 5. Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACP) 6. Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs (MAFC) 7. 911 Representation (MCDA / APCO / NENA) 8. Michigan Association of Ambulance Services (MAAS) 9. Michigan Emergency Management Association (MEMA) 10. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 11. Michigan Tribal Representation

SLIGP GRANT Michigan received a $4.185M State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) award - $3.347M in grant funds requiring an $837K match - to provide the resources to identify needs, gaps, and priorities for public safety wireless broadband, support education and outreach efforts, and to prepare for consultation with FirstNet. Through Q12, Michigan has spent $1.451M in grant funds (43%), and produced $573K (68%) matching funds. TWITTER September 1, 2016, @MiPSBB Twitter Account metrics: 452 Followers, 498 Tweets and Following 373 UPCOMING EVENTS AND CALENDAR HIGHLIGHTS

• September 14, 2016 – MiPSB presenting at the MIGMIS Conference • September 22, 2016 – MiPSB presenting at the MI APCO Conference • September 30, 2016 – End of Q13 SLIGP Reporting Period • October 6, 2016 – FirstNet Programmatic Environmental Impact Study Public Hearing • October 11, 2016 – MiPSB Work Group Meeting • November 2016 - FirstNet announces RFP award • November 16-17, 2016 – FirstNet SPOC Meeting

FirstNet State Plan• Delivered June 17th via online portal• Coverage Maps• Phased Deployment Model• Subscriber plans• Device and application ecosystem• Security

93 Public safety representatives, business, and technical SMEs participated in the review process

Compile Reviewers Comments

45 Days

AG / Legal

Procurement

Security

Infrastructure

MiPSB Workgroup

Interop Board

Gov’s Office

State PlanReview Team

30 Days 15 Days

FirstNet Contract Award

FirstNet/AT&T Develop

Draft State Plan

Initial State Plan Review Process…FirstNet

Delivers Draft State Plan

State and Local Public Safety

Agencies

3/30/17

6/19/17 8/4/177/19/17

SPOCSubmits Reviewers’

Comments to FirstNet

SPOCSubmits

Reviewers’Comments to FirstNet

FirstNet Delivers

FinalState Plan

90 Days45 Days

Reviewers’ Comments and Evaluation of

Alternate Network to Governor Snyder

FirstNet Incorporates

Mutually Agreed Upon Modifications

Governor Snyder’s

Evaluation and Decision

… State Plan Review Process


Opt-in/OutNotification8/4/17

9/15/17

12/15/17

Compile Reviewers Comments

45 Days

AG / Legal

Procurement

Security

Infrastructure

MiPSB Workgroup

Interop Board

Gov’s Office


Reviewers’ Comments and Evaluation of Alternate Network to

Governor Snyder

30 Days 15 Days

FirstNet Contract Award

FirstNet/AT&T Develop

Draft State Plan

Actual State Plan Review ProcessFirstNet

Delivers Draft State Plan

State and Local Public Safety

Agencies

3/30/17

6/19/17 8/4/177/19/17Early Adopter

Decision

FirstNet Modified State Plan

Centralized Policies and Procedures

QOS – Maintain bandwidth capacity and speed

70

Does PS have the day to day need for the bandwidth?

Quality of Service, Priority and Preemptionon a Shared Network

Entrance

Preemption – non-PS removed from network, other PS users move over if reaching capacity

Priority – PS always maintains priority access to network

• Initially Four Priority Levels• Three static levels assigned at subscriber registration• One level for top priority assignment during an incident

• Static and dynamic priority level assignments are managed at the agency level via a customer portal

• No policy or definition for priority level assignments• Dynamically assigned levels not to exceed 24 hours• Extended Public Safety Users will not have the ability to

dynamically uplift priority level assignments• Dynamic uplifting only required during network

congestion

Priority Levels

Issues to be Addressed• Lack of consistency in user level assignments across all

agencies/disciplines• Mixed priority levels for similar roles during multi-

agency response• Coordination of dynamic uplifting during multi-agency

response• BYOD user static and dynamic level assignments• Dynamic uplifting for extended public safety responders• Network monitoring to alert Incident Commander of

potential congestion

Identity Credential Access Management• Several agency maintained solutions identified in

the portal• Federated IdM with Bring Your Own Credentials utilizes agency

credentialing• Certified Enterprise Mobility Management for BYOD access• FirstNet as the Identification (ID) provider• Optional Identity as a Service (IDaaS) at additional cost

• Financial penalties for not meeting public safety subscriber milestones

Issues to be Addressed• Definition of eligible first responder and extended first

responder• Mix of first responder and administrative personnel

within an agency• BYOD user validation, registration and database

maintenance• Ongoing auditing and validation of registered subscribers

and/or devices within an agency• Device and application level prioritization vetting

Deployable Asset Management• Two Communication on Light Truck (COLT) deployable units

assigned to Michigan• 14 hour Recovery Time Objective (including drive time and

turn up service)• Four deployable request categories

• Incident coverage request by a PSE• Non-incident coverage request by a PSE• Non-public safety event capacity request by a PSE• Special request by FirstNet (demonstrations, outreach)

• Any agency under contract can submit a request to deploy or reserve units directly to AT&T

Issues to be Addressed• Staging location • Process to request deployment• Prioritization of deployment and re-deployment

of units during an incident, network outage, or capacity event

• Mutual aid to and from neighboring states

MiPSB Workgroup Recommendation• Establishment of a statewide body to identify and draft

consistent policies for public safety agencies.

• The body should reside under the umbrella of the MPSCIB, through the Broadband Workgroup as a Task Team.

• This new Task Team should be comprised of individuals from a representative cross section of public safety disciplines, including extended public safety entities, and represent all levels of government.

• Continued Dialogue with AT&T to Finalize Network Plan• Confer with Stakeholders through Regional Meetings • Develop Centralized Policies and Procedures

• Stay informed and involved• Consult with key decision makers

• Be the ambassador for your region / discipline

Next Steps

Contact Us:www.michigan.gov/[email protected]

Twitter.com/MiPSBB

Pamela MatelskiDirector, MiPSB [email protected](517) 373-0084

mailto:[email protected]

https://youtu.be/YcyPhtAbjn0

https://youtu.be/YcyPhtAbjn0

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012• Final recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to be adopted• Created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)• Dedicated 20 MHz of bandwidth (Band 14) in the upper

700MHz frequency range to a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN)

• Provided the blueprint for FirstNet to build, operate, and maintain the NPSBN

• Monetize excess bandwith• QPP across all AT&T legacy and Band 14 networks

• Completely changed the FirstNet model• Accelerated speed to market• No tax dollars - the cost to build, operate, and maintain the NPSBN must

be fully self-sustainable through subscriber / user fees• Robust commercial and public safety grade device ecosystem• Public safety applications store• Aggressive public safety pricing plans• Dedicated 24/7 US-based public safety helpdesk

FirstNet’s Partnership with AT&T

Basic FirstNet Services• Smartphone functionality with public safety QPP

• Voice over LTE• Texting (SMS and MMS)• Data and Video streaming

• Vehicular routers• Publically available applications• Public Safety applications from a FirstNet “App Store”

• Availability will be reliant on applications developers• Applications toolkit• Application certification

• Not a replacement for Mission Critical Voice over LMR

Opt-In• FirstNet builds the NPSBN in Michigan• Does not require any agency to use FirstNet• Be an active participant in shaping the program

Opt-Out• Build, operate, and maintain a state-owned RAN• Contract with a partner to build, operate, and maintain the network

•Do nothing• Implied Opt-in

Governor’s Opt In/Out Considerations

What are the initial budget implications?

Are we prepared to maintain and upgrade the

network for 25 years?

Would potential user fees offset the planned and unplanned RAN costs?

What input will Michigan have in

network operations and policy decisions?

Who will be impacted by this decision and have they been consulted?

Does FirstNet meet our rural coverage needs?

Are opportunities generated for businesses

and education in rural areas?

Recommendations of the Michigan Task Team for Quality of Service, Priority, Preemption (QPP); Identity, Credentialing, and Access Management (ICAM); and Management of Deployable Assets DRAFT REPORT Prepared by:

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1

1. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

2. APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................... 4

3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1. QUALITY OF SERVICE, PRIORITY, AND PREEMPTION ........................................................................... 4 3.2. IDENTITY, CREDENTIALING, AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 8 3.3. DEPLOYABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 9

4. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10

4.1. QUALITY OF SERVICE, PRIORITY AND PREEMPTION ......................................................................... 10 4.2. IDENTITY, CREDENTIALING, AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 10 4.3. DEPLOYABLE ASSETS .................................................................................................................... 10

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of Michigan has been planning for the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) since the inception of the project in 2012. In March 2017, the First Responder’s Network Authority announced that they had awarded a contract to AT&T to become their partner to build and operate the network. On June 19, 2017, AT&T/FirstNet released the initial versions of the deployment plans for each of the 56 states and territories. Each state/territory is able to provide feedback on the plans by August 4, 2017. The plans will then be finalized and delivered to the states and territories again for review and the decision by the governor to either “opt-in” or “opt-out”. There are certain functions inherent in the network which would be best managed through the formulation of centralized policies and procedures to insure consistency across the state to provide maximum efficiency in network operations. Three of these functions include the management of the assignment of static priority levels to network users, and also the ability to “uplift” individual user priority levels during an incident. These functions are a component of the quality of service, priority, and preemption functionality of the network. Secondly, the process of determining which agencies/entities have a public safety component to their mission which would rise to the level of being given access to the public safety features of the network, and the process by which users are granted access to the network, as well as the ongoing validation of that access. These are part of the identity, credentialing, and access management function of the network. Lastly, the issue of the management of deployable assets and the determination as to where these assets will be staged and the procedure for requesting the deployment of these assets for specific incidents/events. A Task Team was formed under the Michigan Public Safety Broadband (MiPSB) Working Group of the Michigan Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board (MPSCIB) to examine these issues and make recommendations through the working group to the interoperability board as to how best manage them within the State. This document contains the details of the efforts of the Task Team, as well as recommendations on how these issues can be managed within Michigan to insure the network functions in the best interest of public safety.

1. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION In February 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (Act) was signed into law and created the First Responder’s Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). FirstNet was charged with building and operating a nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) across 56 states and territories for delivery of mission critical data to first responders.

2

Since the inception of the Act, extensive planning activities have taken place across the country in preparation for the deployment of the network. In March 2017, FirstNet announced they had awarded a contract to AT&T to partner with them in building and operating the network. On June 19, 2017, AT&T/FirstNet released network deployment plans for all 56 states and territories. States have an opportunity to review the plans and provide feedback to AT&T/FirstNet, after which the feedback will be reviewed and incorporated to the extent deemed necessary and/or feasible by them. The revised plans will again be disseminated to the governors of all states and territories, which is anticipated in mid to late September 2017, at which time the governors will have 90 days to accept the plan and have AT&T build and operate the network within the state, or to “opt-out” and have the state assume responsibility for construction and operation of the radio access network portion of the network. In addition to the technical and operational capabilities of the network, there are also procedural and policy components to be considered for maximizing the network efficiency. Three such areas for the development and management of policies and processes are quality of service, priority, and preemption (QPP); identity, credentialing, and access management (ICAM); and the management of FirstNet deployable assets. This report will examine the aforementioned issues and provide recommended options for consideration in handling these processes and policies QPP The specific areas for policy development and management concerning QPP would be the assignment of static priority levels for individuals or devices, as well as the ability to “uplift” a responder to the highest level of priority in real time during an incident. FirstNet has indicated that upon network inception, there will be 4 priority levels on the network. (It is unknown at this time whether level 4 will be considered the highest level of access, or level 1, but for purposes of this report we will consider level 4 to be the highest level for access.) Level 4 will not be able to be assigned to a user or device as a static priority level, as it is reserved for assignment on an incident-specific basis for those persons who need to have the highest priority for a fixed period of time. The first 3 priority levels can be assigned to individuals on a permanent basis for determining access to the network. AT&T has indicated that this assignment of static priorities was envisioned to be done at the agency level for any agency contracting services with AT&T/FirstNet. The problem envisioned with this approach revolves around statewide consistency in the assignment of these priorities, and the potential to negate static priorities if all, or even most agencies just assign each of their personnel as level 3.

3

Additionally, in referring back to the process of “uplifting” responders to level 4 during an incident, AT&T has indicated this will be a capability of any “primary” public safety agency (police, fire, EMS, by their current definition). The functionality consists of the ability of a primary agency to “uplift” the priority level of any responder to level 4 priority for a fixed period of time, not to exceed 24 hours. This would be accomplished through the agency’s AT&T homepage. If level 4 priority is needed longer than 24 hours, the agency would have to go into their homepage and uplift them again after the expiration of 24 hours. This function being performed at the agency level can also result in adverse impacts to incident response, especially in large multi-agency incidents, if each individual agency would uplift each of their personnel to level 4, whether actually necessary or not. ICAM Just as with the QPP functionality, AT&T also envisions allowing each agency to determine which of their personnel and devices can access the network. Each agency would also be responsible to manage the continued validation of that access. This can present problems if an agency would either allow persons who do not have a public safety role to have access to the public safety features of the network, or if they do not continually audit and validate their personnel listing to insure their personnel are still eligible for network access. The network will have a bring your own device (BYOD) policy. Individuals may request to utilize their own personal device to access the network for the public safety features. If that individual is a member of an agency which has a contract with AT&T, they can be authorized by their agency head to have their personal device provisioned to operate on the public safety network. Continual tracking and validation of these users is essential to insuring ongoing network efficiency so as not to allow persons who do not have a public safety role to have devices provisioned for public safety access. Deployable Assets AT&T is in the process of manufacturing 72 deployable cell on light trucks (COLTs) for staging across the country for use on the network. The number of sites which will be staged within the borders of individual states has not been made public by AT&T at this point, but the assumption is that Michigan would see 1 or more of these assets staged within its borders.

4

AT&T has indicated that the locations of the staging areas for these COLTs would have to be at an AT&T facility because they are planning to maintain possession and control of these assets to insure they are maintained and updated properly. To request deployment of a COLT, any agency which has service with AT&T/FirstNet can request the asset directly to AT&T and then AT&T personnel would deploy, set up, maintain, and tear down the COLT for the requested incident. Due to the very limited number of assets which will be available to the state, this could create a situation where an asset is requested by an agency for an incident/event that would not normally require such a resource, but since AT&T would not be vetting or analyzing the request from that perspective, they would simply grant the request and deploy. This would result in this asset now being unavailable for deployment to an incident where it would be critically needed.

2. APPROACH A Task Team was established under the MiPSB Working Group of the MPSCIB to examine these issues and provide recommendations for consideration by the Working Group, and then ultimately by the MPSCIB. The Task Team consisted of Chief Adam Carroll of the Hartland Deerfield Fire Authority, Captain Mel Maier of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office, Undersheriff Michelle LaJoye-Young of the Kent County Sheriff’s Office, Captain Chris Kelenske of the Michigan State Police, and Lieutenant Michael Johnson of the Michigan State Police. A series of conference calls was held during June 2017 for the team to discuss these issues and provide recommendations. 3. FINDINGS 3.1. QUALITY OF SERVICE, PRIORITY, AND PREEMPTION The concepts of priority and preemption are illustrated in figures 1 – 5 below. Figure 1 presents an illustration of the NPSBN as a six-lane highway where approximately 5 miles of the highway will support 300-400 active users, as well as several thousand idle users.

5

Figure 1 – NPSBN

Figure 2 introduces the quality of service (QoS) anticipated from the NPSBN where public safety responders have the ability to set their cruise control at 70 mph and travel that speed indefinitely. This allows public safety to access the resources they need, when they need them, to get where they are going.

Figure 2 – Quality of Service

6

Figure 3 depicts how priority users, or in the case of the illustration, drivers, get access to their own lane in the highway while all others must move out of the way.

Figure 3 – Priority

Figure 4 depicts how first responders with a higher priority access level can access necessary network resources over those first responders with lower priority by forcing them to let the higher priority traffic through.

Figure 4 – Priority Among First Responders

7

Figure 5 illustrates how public safety users will always have preemptive capabilities over commercial users and extended public safety users (those personnel/entities which have a public safety component to their mission, but are outside of the primary disciplines of police, fire, EMS (e.g., transportation, public utilities, probation/parole, etc.)). Primary first responder agencies will always, by default, have higher priority access to the network than extended public safety, unless a primary agency has “uplifted” an extended public safety responder to the highest level of priority during an incident response. Extended public safety agencies will not have the capability of preempting other users.

Figure 5 – Preemption Between Primary, Secondary, and Commercial Users

These illustrations demonstrate the importance of having a consistent, unified approach to establishing static priority levels. If all primary public safety entities established their users at the highest allowable static priority level, the highway could become very congested, thereby not allowing those responders with the most critical needs to access their information. The function of “uplifting” priorities during an incident was also examined. AT&T has indicated that any primary public safety agency under contract with AT&T/FirstNet will have the ability to “uplift” not only their own personnel, but personnel from other agencies, including extended primary safety entities. Extended public safety entities will not have the ability to uplift priorities of any responders. Most incidents handled by a single primary public safety agency would not rise to the level of creating network congestion, and therefore should not have the need to uplift their own personnel or those of extended public safety responders. In the cases of medium to large incidents, where multiple agencies are involved in the response, the ability of all primary agencies responding to perform this function could be problematic if there is no control over the process. The Task Team felt that under these circumstances, the principles of the incident command system (ICS) should come into play for determining which resources are uplifted, and for what length of time.

8

Additionally, the Team felt that the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) Network Control Center (NCC) should have the ability to constantly monitor the status of the NPSBN, and therefore be able to determine when network congestion would call for uplifting. The NCC should also have the ability to perform the uplifting as directed by incident command. Therefore, agencies responding to such multi-agency incidents should have to request uplifting to the NCC. In cases where the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) is operational to deal with an emergency, the NCC would relay all such requests to the SEOC for a decision. The Task Team examined these issues and felt the establishment of a statewide body to identify and draft consistent policies for public safety agencies concerning the assignment of static priority levels was necessary. The team felt that the logical place for this body to reside would be under the umbrella of the MPSCIB, through the Broadband Working Group as a Task Team. This new team should be comprised of individuals from a representative cross section of public safety disciplines, including extended public safety entities, and represent all levels of government. 3.2. IDENTITY, CREDENTIALING, AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT Mission critical communications for public safety responders have largely been provided by land mobile radio (LMR) systems for the past 60 years. In Michigan, the MPSCS provides mission critical voice communications, with some limited data communications capabilities. The MPSCS is owned and operated by the state, and is used by all levels of state, county, local, and federal public safety users. Access to the network is strictly controlled through the MPSCS system administrator. The NPSBN is a network for accessing and sharing of mission critical data, as opposed to mission critical voice, but nonetheless should be considered a public safety mission critical communications network, just like the MPSCS. One significant difference between the MPSCS and the NPSBN is the model of service delivery. Instead of the State owning and operating the network, public safety will purchase communications service from a private provider, AT&T. Under this model, public safety loses a certain amount of control over the network, and specifically who accesses it. Public safety has a large stake in ensuring the network operates to maximum efficiency so first responders have access to the data they require at all times. The Task Team felt that there needed to be a statewide system in place to ensure access to the network was limited to only those persons or entities who have a public safety mission. From an entity perspective, the Team felt the State should have the ability to determine whether an agency/entity had a public safety component to their mission sufficient enough that they should be permitted access to the NPSBN as a public safety entity. The Team felt the State should work with AT&T to identify all such entities within the State which should be allowed such access. It was noted that there are existing databases of such agencies which could be a starting point for inclusion in accessing the network. As the network progresses, if other entities request access based on a public safety mission, the new Task Team referred to above would have the responsibility for vetting the request and approving or denying the request.

9

Additionally, there also needs to be a statewide system of determining which personnel within an agency are permitted access to the network. This is especially important for BYOD purposes. Only public safety personnel should be allowed to have devices provisioned to access the network. A system needs to be developed, through policy or otherwise, for agency heads to be accountable for verifying their personnel are public safety, and also responsible for ongoing regular auditing and validation of those personnel. The most significant risk in not developing and managing such a process is that over the years ahead, there could be many people who have devices provisioned for priority public safety access to the network who either never were public safety, or they were in public safety when the device was originally provisioned, but has since left public service. As these numbers would build up it could have the effect of interfering with public safety’s access to their data if too many people outside of public safety also have priority access. 3.3. DEPLOYABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT As previously stated, AT&T is constructing 72 deployable assets for staging across the country once the network is operational. The Task Team believes the State should provide input into how many assets are needed within Michigan’s borders, and where they should be staged. AT&T has stated that they wish to maintain possession of the assets at all times, and would be responsible for providing staff for deployment. One of the drawbacks to this approach, is AT&T has indicated the assets will need to be staged at an AT&T location which is staffed on a 24/7/365 basis. These locations may not be conducive to the State’s requirement for staging locations. For instance, during the dry summer months, the State would probably want one of the assets in the Upper Peninsula for the forest fire season. If AT&T was unable to stage the asset at a 24/7/365 location near there, their response time could exceed the 12 hour service level agreement. The Task Team felt that the possibility should be explored with AT&T of allowing MPSCS staff to maintain control over the assets, just as they currently do with MPSCS deployables. The MPSCS technical staff could be trained in the maintenance and updating of the assets, and would then be available for deployment and staging in conjunction with the MPSCS assets. In addition to the issues of possession and staging of the assets, there is also the issue of deployment. More specifically, the process for determining whether or not an asset is needed. Under the process AT&T is contemplating, any agency with an AT&T contract can request, directly to AT&T, for deployment of an asset and AT&T will honor the request. As previously stated, this creates a risk that one or more of these scarce resources could be deployed to an incident where it is really not needed, thereby leaving a large area without that resource in the event a true emergency occurred where it was needed. The Task Team felt all requests for deployment of these assets should go through a centralized location. The logical place for these requests to be sent is to the NCC, which also handles all requests for MPSCS assets.

10

NCC personnel can then refer the request to the appropriate State emergency management personnel for approval. This would apply a consistent approach for deployment of these critical assets in assuring they are necessary for the incident/event in question. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1. QUALITY OF SERVICE, PRIORITY AND PREEMPTION The State, through the Broadband Workgroup of the MPSCIB, should look to establish a sub-group to craft policies pertaining to the establishment of static priority levels. These levels should be based on an individual’s role, as opposed to rank or other parameters. The policies should also include a provision on the managing of the uplifting of priorities during multi-agency events. The ICS should be incorporated into this decision-making process for uplifting, and should include requests to the NCC. 4.2. IDENTITY, CREDENTIALING, AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT As with the QPP process above, the established sub-group should also provide a statewide framework for managing access to the network, and insuring continual auditing and validation of network privileges. Policies should contain specific language pertaining to who is eligible for network access, along with appropriate penalties for non-compliance. The State should work with AT&T to determine which agencies/entities are considered public safety, and therefore should be allowed NPSBN access. 4.3. DEPLOYABLE ASSETS The State needs to engage with AT&T to request the number of deployable assets to meet its requirements. The staging locations need to be where the State determines they are needed, and if AT&T staff cannot accommodate this, the State should request MPSCS staff be trained to take possession and maintain the assets. The request process for the assets needs to be defined, and should go through the NCC for initiation of the approval process.

1

Date Section PageUser

NameComment Subject Comment Body AT&Tachment (Y/N)

1 QuestionAPN Are separate VPNs required for data service from both AT&T

LTE and FirstNet Network?

2 QuestionAPN Can the EPC support multiple APNs from a single device to the

customer network with multiple QoS levels?

3 QuestionAPN Can Existing AT&T APN's utilized or do new APN's need to be

created?

4 QuestionAPN What are the options for Private APN connections to Public

Safety Networks? 5 Question APN Will there be additional charges for the APN priority service?6 Question APN Do the APNs support technology like Cisco Nemo?

7 Question

Applications Will an agency be able to block certain applications from being downloaded by their own users? Some of the available apps may not meet policy and I'm wondering if this can be done globally by the agency administrator.

8 QuestionApplications Is there a cost to using/downloading applications from the

FirstNet applications store, and if so, what cost structure has been determined?

9 Question

Applications Will applications developed or provided by FirstNet be accessible and available to non-FirstNet subscribers? If so, is there an expectation that non-FirstNet users would pay a premium to utilze the FirstNet apps. Few if any applications exist in this space now, but to assume that all public safety must be on the same network to promote citizen response and collaboration will only create misaligned solutions for those that are on FirstNet and those that are not on FirstNet.

MichiganFirstNet State Plan Comments

Please review all comments received from agencies within your state or territory, deconflict them as necessary, and submit one list of comments to FirstNet using this template.

2





10 Question

Applications Will delay tolerant applications like web access and email be treated with a lower priority on the transport network? Are the applications and access to web and email for public safety given priority over non-public safety users?

11 Question

Applications Will existing NetMotion solutions utilized in PS enterprises continue to interoperate with FirstNet? Are there any planned future issues or benefits of using the AT&T NetMotion solution over local PS NetMotion solutions?

12 Question

Applications Session Continuity is imperative to LE users as they oftenhave long periods of idle time followed by emergency traffic. Will the Session Continuity provided at network launch remove the need for additional software packages such as NetMotion?

13 Question

Applications Which "industry leading" MDM are supported? Many of our local agencies are not using the three listed (Mobile Iron, Airwatch or MaaS 360). They have already implemented other solutions and will need to know if they are supported or if they will be required to move to one of these options which will have a budgetary impact.

14 QuestionBand 14 Equipment

The cost for new subscribers to purchase compatible devices will be prohibitive to adoption. Will trade-in options or other incentives be offered?

15 Question

CJIS Security Policy

Criminal justice entities have multiple policies around user authentication, password requirements, etc. from the FBI Security Policy. The ability to use existing identify managers is good; however the BYOD is a cause of concern since this is not currently provided for in policy for many entities including State Police. Has this been worked out between FirstNet and FBI Security Policy.

3





16 QuestionCJIS Security Policy

Have the cloud solutions been vetted for compliance with the CJIS Security Policy?


Have the applications/VPN/MDM been vetted for compliance with the CJIS Security Policy?

18 Question


Statement: ...a keystone for FirstNet network security is planning... Question: Has AT&T worked with the FBI Security Officer, Mr. George White, or any other federal representatives on their security team to full understand the network requirements for transmitting and storage of criminal justice information that will traverse the network as far as ensuring law enforcement agencies will remain compliant with their policy? Has they been any 'concern's expressed from the FBI in any conversations/emails?

19 Question


Statement: Administrators can push applications to mobile devices with optional Mobile Device Management service... Question: Has AT&T's MDM service been vetted for FBI Security Policy compliance? If so, can AT&T provide proof of such compliancy?


For criminal justice information in transit, FIPS 140-2 certified encryption is a requirement not an option. What is the cost of "optional" encryption?

21 QuestionFirstNet Security Policy and Requirements

What are the FirstNet Security Policy and Requirements? Where can these be found and are they based on an established framework?

23 QuestionCoverage What was the process used to identify AT&Ts coverage area,

and what are the metrics for both indoor and outdoor coverage?

24 QuestionCoverage What level of building AT&Tenuation is used for indoor

coverage maps?

4





25 QuestionGovernance Will the PSAC be the Program Goveranance and Oversight

group that will "define and manage the policies and procedures….."?

26 Question

Network Statement: The architectures support high degrees of logical redundancy wherever possible.... Question: Has AT&T identified where it is not possible and developed business continuity plans for when it is not possible? Will this information be shared with the State?

27 QuestionNetwork How many locations provide AT&T Private Mobile Connectivity

Service Router (MSCSR) service for Michigan? Are the locations the same for AT&T LTE?

28 QuestionNetwork Is the 'session initiation' in 'control signaling, session initiation,

and streaming video messages' short for SIP (i.e. does voice traffic also receive the highest priority)?

29 QuestionNetwork Does AT&T host their own cloud or is it hosted by a third

party. If hosted elsewhere, who is the cloud provider?

30 Question

Network Statement: reference is made about performance indicators, network and service health, CRM, and trouble ticket tracking... Question: Has AT&T benchmarked the FirstNet service levels with specific goals/metrics for these areas and if so, are they being shared as part of this proposal to indicate the level of service to be provided to the State?

31 QuestionPTT solutions Is there an additional cost for AT&T's Enhanced PP and

Motorola PSC PTT?

5





32 Question

PTT solutions Will the Motorola and AT&T offerings for PTT over LTE work seemlessly together, i.e. can one user using Motorola PTT communicate with a user utilizing the AT&T PTT solution? Could the same occur between differing products users communicate with LMR?

33 QuestionRoadmap The Mission Critical Services Roadmap indicates a March 2022

target for Mission-critical video and data. What functionality will be available upon opt-in?

34 QuestionRoaming Will FirstNet Transition seamlessly to other carrier networks,

like Verizon Wireless?

35 QuestionRoaming Who are the carriers that AT&T has roaming agreements with?

Does this include Sprint and Verizon?

36 QuestionRoaming If AT&T uses other vendors for coverage/roaming in areas that

need coverage, how will they meet the security needed while using these other networks?

37 Question Roaming Will global SIMs be available for roaming into Canada?

38 QuestionSIM Cards Will AT&T cards support multiple APN's including Private APN's

and FirstNet APN's?

39 QuestionSIM Cards Can FirstNet and Commercial service be directed to a single

Private APN?

40 QuestionSIM Cards Will devices maintain the same APN IP as they roam between

FirstNet and Commercial Service?

6





41Recommended Change

Coverage Most of Allegan County has decent coverage short of an area south of Salem Township in the area of Sandy Pines. This area has approximately 25,000 people in the summer. There is also an area along the lakeshore in the area of Macatawa, the NW corner of Allegan County. Lakeshore coverage is crucial for the Fire Service and the open water in that area. There are numerous water rescues every year in this area.


Coverage

Various facilities with poor/non-existent coverage in Kalamazoo County:a. Pfizer manufacturing plant (including extensive hazmat in middle of city) – se corner of Portage & Romence Road, Portage MIb. Kalamazoo Valley Community College (dense student population) – 6767 W O Ave, Texas Twpc. Medilodge of Portage (assisted living with medical calls) – 7855 Currier Dr, Portage, MId. Interfaith Apartments (high crime area) – 1037 Interfaith Blvd, Kalamazoo MI 49007e. Fort Custer State Recreation Area & Military Base – 5163 Fort Custer Dr, Augusta MI 49012f. Battle Creek VA Medical Center - 5500 Armstrong Rd, Battle Creek, MI 49037g. Oshtemo Meijer and Walmart (6660 W Main and 501 N 9th St respectively)h. Oshtemo Twp hall / Oshtemo Fire Station 1 – 7275 W Main Sti. Portage Public Schools – 12th Street Elementary

7






Products and Services

FirstNet/AT&T agree to negotiate affordable and competitive rate plans and services for public safety users within the State in order to promote adoption and minimize agency transition costs. Examples being true unlimited rate plans and a free or discounted device with each new line of service (i.e. smartphone, tablet, modem, aircard, mobile hotspot, and/or other connected device).


Coverage

FirstNet/AT&T agree to modify the phased deployment schedule as presented in the FirstNet State Plan to prioritize rural areas beginning in the Upper Peninsula and northern Michigan, and progressing to the southern border.


Coverage

The State has identified areas that will remain underserved after the Final Operational Capability (FOC) as presented in the FirstNet State Plan. FirstNet/AT&T agree to implement a coverage solution in these areas following the modified phased deployment schedule.

Michigan State Plan Comment_A.pdf


Coverage

In order to be considered acceptable outdoor coverage for public safety broadband, all areas represented as “covered” on the FirstNet portal maps must meet at least 256 kbps uplink (UL) and 768 kbps downlink (DL) at cell edge, measured from outdoor stationary User Equipment at three (3) feet from ground level with a 95 percent confidence margin for the cell area with a uniform cell load of 50 percent for the DL and UL. In the event these metrics are not met in the areas represented as “covered” that network area is considered not acceptable for use as a public safety solution. Once reported, AT&T agrees to identify a solution within 180 days to bring that area into compliance.

8






Coverage

The State recognizes the importance of physical security and resiliency of the LTE sites comprising the FirstNet network solution. FirstNet/AT&T will harden the network for reliability and survivability in accordance with current FirstNet practices. FirstNet/AT&T will achieve this through a combination of facility redundancy, hardening where necessary and appropriate, rapidly deployable temporary facilities, as well as priority service restoration. FirstNet/AT&T agree to work with the Michigan State Police, Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division, to identify towers and/or other network infrastructure supporting the State’s critical infrastructure and ensure these sites will be designed to operate in extreme power outage situations.


Deployable Assets

FirstNet/AT&T shall provide two (2) dedicated Communication on Light Truck (COLT) deployable units to the State by Initial Operational Capability (IOC 2). These units shall be located in Michigan at a mutually agreed upon location and have a minimum 14 hour Recovery Time Objective (RTO) to include drive time and turn-up service. These units shall be owned, maintained, and deployed by FirstNet/AT&T at no cost to the State or the requesting agency.

9






Deployable Assets

The State and FirstNet/AT&T shall reach a mutual agreement on customer owned and maintained (COAM) portable units to be provided and lifecycle renewed at no cost to the State. Each system shall include a self-contained backhaul such as microwave, satellite, or fiber depending on the local situation, or operated autonomously allowing first responders to communicate with each other in the portable unit’s coverage area. FirstNet/AT&T will prepare these units for daily software and data updates and train Michigan Public Safety Communication System (MPSCS) personnel in maintenance procedures to guarantee that they are ready when needed. It is understood the cost of these units may be offset in lieu of other proposed infrastructure enhancements.


Deployable Assets

FirstNet/AT&T shall confirm the State’s access to their extended fleet of deployable units at no cost to the State or the requesting agency for network restoration, disaster recovery, and/or capacity addition activities. This includes the Construction and Engineering deployable units (COWS) that are identified in the portal as “staged nationwide and dispatched only for network restoration activities,” and the Network Disaster Recovery Units (COLTS) that are identified in the portal as “staged at four locations and dispatched for disaster recovery and capacity addition activities.”

10






Mission Critical Services

FirstNet/AT&T shall ensure device-based (when enabled) and network-based location services are inherent to the network to support E911. Enhanced Location Based Services, including x-, y-, and z-axis location will be enabled on the network prior to FOC, as identified in the FirstNet Products and Services Roadmap.



At present, 30 of 83 Michigan counties are deployed with transitional Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the State is on a path to fully replace its analog 911 system with a digital one within the next few years. FirstNet/AT&T agree that NG911 systems and the NPSBN be well-integrated, secure, and utilize standards for security, reliability, and redundancy.



FirstNet/AT&T shall ensure a dedicated team of AT&T staff is available to work cooperatively with any public safety agency through a technical advisory assistance program when transitioning to FirstNet (i.e. transition of legacy applications, interface to and/or transition from APNs, device and application testing).

11






Governance

Certain functions are proposed at the agency level that should be managed through centralized policies and procedures to ensure consistency across the State. FirstNet/AT&T shall agree to abide by the State’s policies and procedures, including but not limited to: o Assignment of static priority levels to network users, and the ability to elevate individual user priority levels during an incident. o Identity, credentialing, and asset management (ICAM) of public safety agencies/users of the network, and ongoing validation of that access. o Activation of deployable assets.

55565758596061626364656667686970

12





7172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596

STATUS OF CURRENT ACTIONS REPORT TO THE MPSCIB – SEPTEMBER 2017 – COMU WG

Interop Board Action Items

Today: Submittal of COMU WG approved COML’s and COMT’s – attachment.

Today: MIFOG Formatting and print update.

Future: Continued SCIP discussion at September 11, 2017 COMU WG in person meeting.

Future: After Action Reporting for Communications.

Future: Finalizing CEU’s or renewal process for COML/COMT.

New Items

Collaboration with AuxComm and MSP-EMHSD regarding credentialing practices. In progress.

Asset typing for communications assets. In progress.

What’s on the Horizon

Continue MI COMU WG education and outreach efforts.

Next meetings: September 27, 2017 (Conference Call)

Training and Exercises

Completed:

June 19-23 COMT class in coordination with Eaton County – Eaton County Dispatch

CANUS June 21-22 Work Group in coordination with DHS – Buffalo, New York

August 2-3 COMMEX Train-the-Trainer in coordination with Indiana – Indianapolis International Airport

September 11 in-person meeting in Pentwater

Future:

Planning process for COMMEX 2 to take place in early 2018.

October 28-29, 2017 Auxcomm class in Muskegon.

March 19- 23 COML location TBD.

michigan public safety communications interoper …...michigan public safety communications...

Documents