By Jonathan El-Nigomi, legal advisor, Danish Centre of Emergency Communication (CFB) and Lasantha De Alwis, telecom policy & regulatory Lead, Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP), UK Home Office
If you are asked to define ‘mission-critical user’, the immediate thought is first responders, the ‘blue light’ services: police, fire and rescue, ambulance and medical services. However, there are many other user groups that depend on mission critical networks and services, and/or support the first responder organisations. These include public safety and security, critical infrastructure, public utilities, transportation, critical industries and related activities, where failures in critical communications would lead to catastrophic degradation of services.
Some countries include users within the military and customs authorities, and non-state voluntary organisations that support emergency services, such as the Red Cross and Mountain Rescue in Norway. The current Airwave TETRA network of the UK is used by a number of other organisations, called Sharers, some of which may become users of the upcoming Emergency Services Network (ESN) which is the broadband network replacing the TETRA network.
No common definition
Yet aside from the first responders, there is no common international definition of ‘mission-critical user’. That is the headline finding of a survey1 carried out by TCCA’s Legal and Regulatory Working Group, which shows that there is no clear unified approach on which user groups are given access to the mission critical network (MCN). Apart from the blue light organisations, the user groups vary from country to country, and sometimes even from region to region and network to network.
Today, a majority of countries that operate MCNs rely on state-owned dedicated narrowband networks using technologies such as TETRA. As critical communications transition to mission critical broadband networks (MCBN), users are utilising the commercial networks that are shared with commercial users. This means there is a shift from purpose-built networks to a reliance on mobile network operators (MNOs).
As a result of the global trend of moving towards MCBNs with enhanced technical functionalities, cross-border interoperability and cooperation between critical communication agencies is expected to improve significantly. There are plans to interconnect MCBNs across national borders in order to enable and support seamless cooperation and collaboration between countries, such as the planned European Critical Communications System (EUCCS). This aims to connect national MCBNs enabling seamless critical communication and operational mobility across the EU and Schengen area in order to strengthen public safety and civil protection, and provide a trusted interoperable communication environment that supports responders during national, cross-border and pan-European operations.
Additionally, the UK and France will need to enable interworking between their respective MCBN, the UK Emergency Services Network (ESN) and Réseau Radio du Futur (RRF) of France, for instance to aid cooperation in and around the Channel Tunnel.
Achieving interoperability and integration
This evolution of critical communications highlights that defining the users is a topic that needs further attention in order to achieve enhanced interoperability and cooperation. The transition to commercial networks must entail a transfer of the high security and reliability features that emergency services across the globe have come to rely on from the current narrowband networks.
Mission-critical users have special requirements compared to commercial users that will need to be enabled in the new MCBNs. These include for example priority and pre-emption and a high level of service quality (QPP). Since only mission-critical users will need to be provided these features, those users need to be clearly defined. A definition may also be required in cases where a country wishes to establish an internal hierarchy within the MCBN in order to dedicate different scales of QPP to different users in the event of capacity limitations.
In the case of bilateral relations, such as between the UK and France, a common understanding in operational aspects is critically important. For example, roaming across networks requires each party to recognise mission-critical users of the other network on their own network. This raises the question of which users are to be accepted and can gain access to the visited network. If the definition of ‘user’ differs significantly between networks/agencies, enabling roaming would be operationally complicated.
A potential showstopper
Experience from the InterSystem Interface (ISI) project, which interconnects TETRA systems in the Nordics, shows that even countries with a great degree of similarity such as the participating countries of Sweden, Finland and Norway have different views on who the mission critical users should be. Agreeing a definition turned out to be a potential showstopper for interconnecting the countries.
To resolve the issue, the parties entered into agreements that regulate interconnection between the national TETRA networks and lay down individual responsibilities and tasks vis-à-vis ISI. The parties have granted each other the authority to approve users with ISI-approved radio terminals to become ISI end users and utilise the ISI functionalities. Without this common approach and formal agreements, the different definitions of users would have prevented ISI from achieving its full potentials. Such arrangements are possible only bilaterally or between a few countries, but the broader sector requires norms based on commonly accepted definitions.
As the critical communication sector is much smaller than the consumer sector, critical communication agencies have come to realise that they have to work closely together and present a common front, not least to demonstrate the potential of the market so that the industry takes due notice and invests in the research and development needed to serve the sector. Close collaboration requires a common understanding and common approaches. Critical communication agencies consult with each other on matters of mutual interest such as procurement. For common approaches to be effective, the terminology used must have the same or similar meaning throughout the sector and across the agencies.
Over the years, the wider telecommunication sector has developed a set of terms with globally accepted definitions, which has contributed to the overall development of the sector. Norms in terminology help improve collaboration, leading to innovation and economies of scale. The critical communication sector needs to follow this path to foster strong collaboration between all stakeholders. The term ‘user’ is thus a key term that requires a common definition, not least as a prerequisite for effective cross-border communication.
1 The LRWG survey gathered information on users that have access to the existing MCN in a selection of European countries; United Kingdom, Denmark, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Finland and Germany. In the survey, the governmental agencies operating the MCN were asked to provide information regarding the definition of users, both for the existing narrowband networks and the new broadband networks.
2 https://euccs.eu/
