Who are the mission-critical communications users?

In the transition from narrowband to mission-critical broadband networks there will need to be an agreed definition of a ‘mission-critical user’.

There are many types of operations that rely on critical communications. These include public safety and security, emergency services, critical infrastructure, public utilities, transportation, critical industries and related activities, where failures in critical communications would lead to catastrophic degradation of services. Yet there is no clear definition of a ‘mission-critical user’.

To date it has been each country itself that defines the users of their mission critical network. This is reflected in the findings from a survey carried out by TCCA’s Legal and Regulatory Working Group (LRWG). The survey gathered information on users that have access to the mission-critical network (MCN) in the 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.

The findings form the basis for the new white paper Definition of Users in Mission Critical Networks. The paper highlights that there is no clear common approach or definition of user groups that are given access to the mission-critical network. Apart from the first responders — police, fire and rescue, and ambulance services — the user groups vary from country to country, and sometimes even from region to region and network to network.

The transition from narrowband to broadband services

Today, a majority of countries that operate mission-critical networks rely on state-owned dedicated narrowband systems such as TETRA networks, open only to critical users. However, as critical communications transition to broadband services, they will be utilising commercial networks shared with commercial users. This puts a reliance on commercial mobile network operators to provide mission-critical user requirements.

A majority of the countries that provide mission-critical networks (MCNs) are currently working on a transition to mission-critical broadband networks (MCBNs). As the new MCBNs will be based on the commercial networks, the transition 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 legacy networks.

In addition to this, the users of the MCN also have special requirements compared to ordinary commercial users that will need to be enabled in the commercial networks regarding Quality of Service, Priority and Pre-emption (QPP), hence the need for a common definition of a ‘mission-critical user’.

Since not all users of the commercial networks can benefit from the features and advantages of MCBN, there will be a need to define who the users of the MCBN shall be.

A definition may also be required in cases where a country wishes to establish an internal hierarchy within the MCBN in order to dedicate QPP to certain resources in the event of capacity limitations.

Cross-border cooperation

In many parts of the world, such as in Europe, there are also plans to interconnect mission-critical broadband networks across national borders in order to enable and support seamless cooperation and collaboration between countries, such as the planned European Critical Communications System (EUCCS). Additionally, Great Britain and France will have to enable interworking between the Emergency Services Network (ESN) and Réseau Radio du Futur (RRF), to aid cooperation in and around the Channel Tunnel.

In the case of bilateral relations, a common understanding in operational aspects is critically important, for example, when roaming across networks. 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 and agencies, enabling roaming would be operationally complicated.

Agreed terminology

Over the years, the wider telecommunication sector has developed a set of terms with globally accepted definitions, and this 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 should also follow this path to foster strong collaboration between all stakeholders.

“The critical communication sector is comparatively much smaller than the consumer sector, so critical communication agencies have come to realise that they have to work closely together,” said Nina Myren, LRWG chair and TCCA Board member. “Close collaboration requires a common understanding and common approaches, and for common approaches to be effective, the terminology used must have the same or similar meaning throughout the sector and across the agencies.”

The term ‘user’ is thus a key term that requires a common definition, not least as a prerequisite for effective cross-border communication.

As a result of the global trend of moving towards MCBN with enhanced technical functionalities, cross-border interoperability and cooperation between critical communication agencies is expected to improve significantly. An example of this is the EUCCS that aims to connect national MCBNs through seamless critical communication and operational mobility across the EU and Schengen area in order to strengthen public safety and civil protection.

Blue Light organisations users and ‘other’ users

The Blue Light organisations (police, fire, rescue and ambulance) form the core users of the MCN in all the countries surveyed by the LRWG. In addition, several countries have enabled other user groups to use the MCN.

The category of other users that have access to the MCN in the countries span a broad range of sectors and entities, reflecting distinct national approaches to safety and civil contingency. Examples include users within the military and customs authorities as well as critical infrastructure operators such as utility companies. Some countries also include non-state organisations that support emergency services, such as the Red Cross and Mountain Rescue in Norway.

The LRWG identified three main approaches to the MCN utilisation; mandatory, voluntary or approval-based MCN usage. The survey results show that half of the countries have legally obliged users to use the existing MCN through national laws. The obligations primarily cover Blue Light organisations, and to some extent the military. In all the surveyed countries, other users must be formally approved in order to become users of the MCN.

User priority levels

The survey also examined whether user groups have different priority levels within the MCN. Many responding countries replied that no such measures are applied, meaning that all users are treated equally. However just under half confirmed that priority levels are implemented, granting certain user groups higher priority during network congestion. The type of priority levels applied vary by country and consist of mechanisms such as organisational level prioritisation, prioritisation based on operational needs and prioritisation of specific talk groups such as emergency talk groups.

Responses from the survey indicate countries plan to continue with the same practice as applied today and at least one country intends to implement the user hierarchy in the MCBN in a different manner than in the existing MCN, indicating a further need to reassess user definition in light of the added functionality and complexity associated with MCBN.

Recommendations

The LRWG is of the view that it is beneficial for the critical communication sector to consider setting a definition of the user through legislation. An option is to establish a common definition or setting minimum criteria defining core users, mainly in the form of the Blue Light organisations, which would largely correspond to an ‘emergency service’ as defined in existing legislation. Additionally, legislation could define other users who may utilise the MCBN and MCN in accordance with national practice and thereby require mutual recognition of such users amongst interconnected countries.

In addition to the definition of users, it may be relevant to define mission critical functionalities that the MCBN should generally support. This is to ensure that users visiting another country can have access to the same or similar levels of functionalities as in their home networks thereby optimising operational mobility.

Image credit: iStock.com/valentinrussanov