MEMPHIS, TENN.--The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security last week announced the funding of a $2 million pilot project that will allow Tennessee Public Television Stations to provide secure communications between local first responders and their management teams. The funds will go towards the installation of datacasting equipment and software that will allow each Tennessee Public Television station to send out and receive encrypted public safety video, files, alerts and other data along with regular programming.

Stations will begin testing the datacasting systems within six months of receiving the funds and it’s estimated that the entire project will be completed within 30 months. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security added that it expects what it calls the nation's "first statewide datacasting system” will be a model for regional and even national deployments in the future.

[Read: PILOT-Ing A New Communications Option For First Responders]

The six stations receiving the funds include: Memphis (WKNO), Martin/Lexington/Jackson (WLJT), Nashville (WNPT), Cookeville (WCTE), Knoxville/Sneedville (East TN PBS) and Chattanooga (WTCI). Using the datacasting and fiber connections already in place within those stations, fire, medical, police and government officials will be able to communicate with one another in targeted emergency or natural disaster areas.

“The partnership between the Tennessee Department of Safety and the Tennessee Public Television Council (TPTC) is ideal because all six public television stations in the state are interconnected, have tall broadcast towers, backup generator power, 24-hour operations, and the spectrum available to make this project a reality,” Michael LaBonia, WKNO President/CEO and Project Director said. “Datacasting technology should enhance existing emergency management systems already in place and become one more step in helping keep people safe in an emergency. We are happy to be able to add this new technology to our existing infrastructure and look forward to working with Safety and Homeland Security in Tennessee.”

Two years ago, NAB launched its PILOT program, an initiative designed “to bring together leading-edge companies, organizations and educators to advance broadcast technology and broadcaster innovation.” Numerous companies including Accenture, Frankly, IBM, Google and Nielsen have joined the coalition that helps drive the research, creation, testing and implementation of new technologies and solutions.

Last month NAB announced its third annual PILOT Challenge. The program recognizes creative ideas that leverage technological advances in the production, distribution and display of engaging content. It also provides support to the winners for development. The challenges are supported by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

I had a chance to talk with the winner of the grand prize in last year’s challenge, UNC-TV, which won for its proposal to use the ATSC 3.0 standard to enable North Carolina’s public safety community to provide timelier response to emergencies by datacasting over broadcast signals.

Fred Engel, senior director of technology at Public Media North Carolina/UNC-TV explained the proposal, which stemmed from a suggestion from Red Grasso, North Carolina’s FirstNet Single Point of Contact with the state Department of IT. Grasso, a former firefighter and fire department communications expert, was concerned that a local fire department was considering purchasing new analog voice paging radios, but “the idea of ‘new’ and ‘analog’ just didn’t roll off his tongue real well,” Engel said. Grasso approached UNC-TV to inquire whether ATSC 3.0 might provide a new means of alerting for first responders.

Those of us old enough to remember the TV series “Emergency,” will recall one of its signature moments when an emergency was called into the local fire station; after the tones sounded, a voice would announce the details of the emergency, including who was to respond and what they were responding to. In the real world, that part of the alert could last up to a minute depending on the severity of the emergency. That technology, which is still being used in many stations, is analog-based, which limits its capabilities, according to Engel.

Based on a real life event of a multiunit dispatch for a fire Engel said it took 67 seconds from the time the very first tone alert was generated to the end of the voice alert. “During that 67 seconds, if there’s any other incidents that happen, they all have to wait until that one is fully communicated before the next one will be announced,” Engel said. “So, depending on what else is going on, whether it’s a car accident, cardiac arrest, whatever, those all have to wait.”

The goal was to provide a text-based protocol that would provide instant alerts to first responders’ pagers, and help reduce delays in providing follow up alerts. And providing text alerts would allow those first responders to better retain the information. Cellular was not an alternative because insurance carriers don’t recognize cellular as an approved method of delivering this kind of message to first responders, Engel said. So how about broadcast?

[Read: NAB Launches Third Annual PILOT Innovation Challenge]

Around this time, in late 2016, the National Institute of Science and Technology issued a grant request for proposals to improve public safety communications, including new ways to “provide resilient systems to deliver emergency messaging.” UNC-TV, along with PBS, local broadcaster WRAL-TV and local public safety officials collaborated on applying for the grant but were unsuccessful, so Engel turned his attention to the PILOT challenge that was issued around the same time.

Engel said UNC-TV had previously done some 911 dispatch testing with ATSC 1.0 but there were several factors that led them to propose ATSC 3.0 as a solution, namely the mobility factor and the robustness of the Next Gen TV signal, particularly for indoor penetration.

Engel and his group successfully conducted their first test this spring, transmitting emergency information from a local fire department dispatch center to the UNC-TV campus using WRAL’s ATSC 3,0 test signal. Engel says further testing is in the works, based on feedback his group received from a meeting with public safety officials and commercial product manufacturers in July.

There are a lot of elements to take into account, not the least is getting manufacturers to add ATSC 3.0 receivers into the pagers but Engel acknowledges that the project is in the very early stages, adding that there has been interest from other corners of the public broadcasting community.

“They’re all interested in this, to see how this might take off, because it’s the kind of thing that that just makes our networks more vital to the states we serve,” Engel said.

The deadline for entering the third annual PILOT Challenge is Oct. 19. For more information, visit https://nabpilot.org/challenge.

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

The author is general counsel of the Society of Broadcast Engineers. This commentary was published in the March 2018 edition of The Signal. © SBE

I attended a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee recently, at which both ARRL and NAB had witnesses testify on the respective importance of amateur radio and broadcasting in emergency alerting and disaster response. FCC had a very compelling witness also: Ms. Lisa Fowlkes, the chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, testified on the FCC’s investigation of erroneous emergency alerts.

It was really riveting testimony from all witnesses, and the hearing was fascinating. It dealt specifically with the “false alarm” of an imminent missile attack in Hawaii recently; how such a thing could happen; why it took more than half an hour to rescind the alert and calm the panic in Hawaii; and how to make sure such a nightmare never happens again.

On a broader basis, the hearing testimony provided insight into the function of broadcasters, mobile wireless service providers and amateur radio operators in emergency alerting.

RESPOND VS. INFORM

The testimony of NAB was, I thought, simply excellent. It stressed the important role of broadcasters in front-line emergency alerting, and the reliance of the general public on broadcasters to disseminate emergency information in real time. NAB has asserted that in a disaster situation, 57 percent of the public turns to radio and television broadcast stations for updates and information in emergencies. This is an impressive number in a time of ubiquitous text messaging and other alerting platforms.

[Read: Broadcasters Now Guaranteed Access To Disaster Areas]

So broadcasters are indisputably “kings of the hill” in emergency alerting. But is it fair to call them “first responders”?

One might question that label, inasmuch as it is traditionally associated with, and limited to, police, fire and rescue and EMS personnel. Years ago, I prepared some testimony for an ARRL witness at a congressional hearing about federal support for first responders in spectrum allocations. I likened amateur radio ARES and RACES participants to first responders.  

For that, I had my head handed to me by the then-CEO at ARRL. He told me in no uncertain terms that this would not sit well with first responders, who were the principal served agencies of ARES and RACES. I never drew the analogy again.

Last September, the Senate passed S. 102, the Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act (SANDy as it came to be known; referencing the 2012 superstorm that ravaged the East Coast). S. 102 was a slightly different bill than H.R. 588, passed in January of 2017 by the House; but they have the same basic intent.

Since the House and Senate Bills are different, the differences had to be resolved by Congress before being sent to the president for signature. Both bills have the same effect with respect to the role of broadcasters in emergencies. They provide for access by “essential service providers” to emergency locations and disaster sites “necessary for establishing temporary or restoring wireline or mobile telephone service, Internet access service, radio or television broadcasting, cable service, or direct broadcast satellite service.”

Both bills specify that the term “essential communications services’’ means “wireline and mobile telephone service, Internet access service, radio and television broadcasting, cable service, and direct broadcast satellite service.” This is a great thing. It allows broadcast engineers to access disaster locations to restore broadcast service during or following a major disaster, and it acknowledges the important role of broadcasters in emergency alerting.

Some states have adopted “first informer” state statutes that have the same effect. But access by broadcasters in this context must be uniform throughout the 50 states and territories in order to solve the problem of access to disaster areas for re-institution of broadcast service.

Inside Radio last September reported the passage of the SANDy Act by the Senate and claimed that the bill “designat(ed) radio and TV as ‘first responders’ during natural disasters.” Actually, the legislation doesn’t do that exactly. “Essential service providers” and “first responders” are not at all synonymous, and the latter term is not found anywhere in either bill.

NAB has carefully avoided misuse of the term “first responders” as well, and good for them for doing so.

NAB was quoted as saying that when hurricanes hit, as they did last fall, “hometown radio and TV stations play a lifesaving role as ‘first informers’ during times of emergencies, and this legislation will provide local broadcasters with access to vital resources to stay on the air when disaster strikes.”

First informers: absolutely. Access to disaster sites to restore broadcast facilities by broadcast engineers: critical. “Essential Service Providers”: absolutely valid description of broadcasters and broadcast engineers. Congress needs to get this legislation to the president pronto, and he needs to sign it without any further delay.

But let’s not confuse roles here.

“First responder” is a term that should be limited to those who really fit the classic description. The term is defined in U.S. Homeland Security Presidential Directive, HSPD-8 which provides the following definition: “those individuals who in the early stages of an incident are responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment, including emergency response providers as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 101), as well as emergency management, public health, clinical care, public works, and other skilled support personnel (such as equipment operators) that provide immediate support services during prevention, response and recovery operations.”

Comment on this or any story. Emailtvtech@nbmedia.com with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject line.