Today’s blog talks about the problems encountered by first responders in rural areas related to poor broadband and cellular coverage. The blog was prompted by an excellent report, Beyond Connectivity Among Rural First Responders in Pennsylvania, authored by Christopher Ali, Abigail Simmerman, and DongWood Jeong of The Pennsylvania State University. The report was sponsored by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The findings are not going to surprise anybody who works with public safety in rural areas.
The report is based on the findings from focus groups and interviews with law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, 911 center representatives, local officials, and other key stakeholders. The in-depth discussions identified multiple problems that hinder public safety work in rural areas:
- The lack of rural cellular coverage means there are rural dead zones where first responders and the public can’t reliably communicate with each other. This means the public often has trouble connecting to 911. It means that first responders struggle with dropped calls and often can’t find the person who needs help. The report cites examples where first responders sometimes have to go door-to-door looking for somebody with a landline in order to communicate locally – which will be an increasing problem as copper networks are being torn down.
- Many jurisdictions have public safety radio networks for first responders to communicate with their home hub. First responders in Pennsylvania complained that there is a major inconsistency between the types of networks being deployed, and that they often find themselves working in an area that uses different radios and frequencies than the radios they are equipped with. They also say that in the mountains that cover Pennsylvania, there are many places where those radio networks don’t reach.
- There were complaints about the astronomical cost of devices. Both cellphones and public safety radios have gotten increasingly expensive. In rural areas, first responders might have to carry multiple cellphones to connect to different carriers.
- There is an overall perception among first responders that they are underfunded and don’t have the resources needed to do a good job in rural areas.
The report goes on to address policy issues that might be addressed by the General Assembly if they want to improve public safety performance in rural areas.
- The rural coverage issues can only be fully addressed with more towers. The report suggests this would be a good use for BEAD non-deployment funds, although it’s looking increasingly unlikely that funding will never be allocated to states.
- The report suggests the legislature could create rules to address the multiple radio frequencies and technologies being used. They note that Pennsylvania has adopted the P25 radio standard to promote interoperability, but that many local jurisdictions have not adopted the standard.
- The report also recommends a program to update and replace outdated radio technologies. Many local jurisdictions are sticking with older radio systems due to budget constraints on buying new ones.
- The report suggests an overall budget increase to provide the money needed to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of radios.
- The report suggests more funding to fully implement NextGen 911. It notes that the state only adopted this standard in 2025 and there has already been intermittent outages.
- Finally, the report recommends creating more awareness among state leadership on the conditions encountered in rural public safety.
This is a long 75-page report that goes into a lot of detail, and that is a good read for anybody living in or concerned about rural America. The problems highlighted in Pennsylvania are not unique and are found in varying degrees in rural areas across the country.
I’m sure there are cases of this being completely true, but I don’t think it’s actually true at scale. And ‘industry reports’ are essentially always a tool to extract federal money, not ‘true reports’
I’ve seen MANY times where cell service including 911 wasn’t reliable where you could actually see a tower, even standing underneath a tower. I think there are some critical flaws in how various carriers share 911 access that need addressed, ie if I’m a tmobile customer w/ no service standing under a verizon tower, I should still have 100% 911 and it’s supposed to be that way.
Allowing or even endorsing cell services to be used for FWA is a big part of the problem. Towers that are now at capacity, backhauls to those towers at capacity, and no real responsibility to track or report in failed 911 calls for other provider’s customers means there’s no reason to prioritize or make room.
Mobile services should be mobile services, outright ban the sale of ‘broadband’ style connectivity on mobile spectrum and 99% of these issues go away overnight, then you can actually see where there truly is inadequate tower coverage for 911 services and strategically invest. Otherwise this will turn into a$100Bn critical infrastructure build that makes for some enourmouse bonuses at the top of the cell industry just like every single other plan like this has without exception.
Hi Doug. Thanks for highlighting this report. It’s a good report, but I’d like to address a couple of things that I felt the report didn’t cover well. One involves technology and one involves training.
Technology: I agree that the dearth of cellular coverage in rural areas is a significant problem. However, for first-responder to first-responder communications, technology is not the problem. Even the cheapest public safety land-mobile radios are capable of holding dozens or even hundreds of channels, and the digital radios are capable of analog operation, even if the analog radios aren’t capable of digital. Many states have detailed plans for interoperability that use both digital and analog technology so that small departments that can’t afford digital radios can still communicate with one another. In fact, such plans are called for by the Department of Homeland Security. The problem with interoperability is not technology.
Training: In my experience as a public safety wireless consultant, I have found that the major obstacle to interoperable communications is training of the end users and dispatchers. Many departments I have worked with have radios that have every imaginable interoperability channel programmed into them, yet no one knows which channel to tune to when the need to work with another department arises. Dispatchers are often not trained on how to give out those instructions over the air, either.
Buying new technology is expensive. So is training, but even simply having the radio technician write out instructions so that dispatchers can get their users tuned to the right interoperability channel and incorporating that into an SOP would go a long way to fixing the problem.
Thanks for letting me rant.