Mike Petersen

Walk into a firehouse anywhere and you're likely to hear firefighters talking about broadband. The fuel for these discussions often is news of a new, more powerful consumer smartphone. Firefighters want access to the capabilities consumer devices deliver.

They are anxious for FirstNet to deploy, providing a nationwide public safety broadband network over which mission-critical devices can operate, but the timing is still unclear.

"Imagine what broadband can mean for EMS if personnel are documenting injuries to hundreds of people in a major disaster," says Don Wright, retired battalion chief in Glendale, California. "Think about the impact this could have for a victim's continuity of care if physicians at receiving hospital emergency rooms had the same information in real time."

Everyone agrees on the broadband objective-arm incident commanders (ICs) with the communications tools they need to "have the back" of the team. And, the benefit is clear-situational awareness raised to an entirely new level. The question is when this will happen.

The Transition Begins

It may be sooner than many thought. "We are just at the start of our transition to broadband," says Mike Worrell, acting chief, Technical Services Division, Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department. "But, the fire service is moving forward cautiously. We want to be sure that the networks and devices we use are reliable and cost-effective to operate."

Many departments have decided to start taking advantage of broadband themselves. These departments have discovered that they have several options available. On the network side, today's carriers provide services in multiple band classes plus 3G, 4G LTE, and WiFi. And when FirstNet is available, making the transition from these carrier networks will be easier than starting from scratch.

As for broadband devices, options today include smartphones, vehicular modems, USB LTE adaptors, and embedded LTE modules. And, several new public safety grade devices can connect to carrier LTE networks and to the future FirstNet network.

"We are experimenting with public safety broadband-capable LTE modems to create hot spots within our fire apparatus," says Kasey Beal, deputy chief, Fire Technical Services Division, Mesa (AZ) Fire and Medical Department. "By creating a hot spot, we can connect multiple devices to the modem and substantially decrease our ongoing air card costs."

Needs, Expectations Clarified

Working with broadband has helped departments better identify requirements for the future. The list includes the predictable-rugged, standards-compliant devices and the technological flexibility to accommodate emerging technologies ranging from biometrics to drones.

But, there are other pressing requirements-how best to manage data, training, and costs. Everyone agrees information over broadband must be understandable, easily usable, and targeted primarily to ICs. "You can't distract a guy with data while his primary job is operation of a hoseline," Wright says.

Training will take time to get to "best practices." And, cost will be a significant factor. Departments will have to make hard choices from an ever-expanding list of compelling options. Many of the hardware and application solutions may ultimately depend on when FirstNet deploys. That said, some thought leaders believe departments could be working more closely with engineers to develop systems and applications that could be put to use now.

Regardless of one's personal view, there i

By Bill Adams

Industry experts and fire service commentators weighing in on purchasing fire apparatus advocate writing open or performance specifications (specs). At the same time, they usually demonize proprietary specs as being unethical, morally incorrect, political hot potatoes, perhaps illegal, never in a purchaser's best interests, and giving preferred vendors blank checks.

You name it, and it's been said. It's politically correct to do so and is probably the narration most trade journals expect. And, I'm as guilty as the next person of saying it. However, there are two sides to every story. There are instances when proprietary purchasing specifications may be justified.

Apparatus Manufacturers

Many fire apparatus manufacturers (OEMs) will not broach the subject in a public forum. Some find it difficult and even embarrassing to discuss the advantages of a proprietary spec without appearing to promote their own product. That's understandable, and I respect their wishes. However, it's undeniable that OEMs want prospective buyers to write purchasing specifications favoring their apparatus. They just won't admit it or they can't. As a former dealer, I used to write "tight" specifications-"tight" being a polite term for proprietary. Is that being disingenuous, hypocritical, or illegal? Not really. A proprietary purchasing spec is a complicated mixture of capitalism and political correctness used to define a fire truck while staying within legal parameters. That's life-welcome to the real world.

Standardization

Standardization is an easy sell for an apparatus purchasing committee (APC) to justify a proprietary spec to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The more rigs a department owns, the easier the sell is. Drivers only have to train on one manufacturer's apparatus. Equally beneficial is having identical pump and aerial controls. Personnel and apparatus can move from station to station or company to company without requiring refresher or additional training. Standardization has added value in volunteer entities where there is limited exposure to operating apparatus. It can increase efficiency, productivity, and safety on the fireground. It's a justifiable use of resources and could be financially beneficial in the long term. Politicians embrace terms such as efficiency, productivity, and financially beneficial.

Fire departments with in-house shops should see lower maintenance and repair costs with standardized apparatus. They can keep parts inventories to a minimum. Mechanics will require less training when a single manufacturer supplies specialized components. Productivity and proficiency should increase with exposure to and familiarization with identical products. Politicos like lower costs and proficiency too.

Some OEMs contend that specifying a particular body material is a restrictive requirement. Specifying types of construction such as using bent and formed metal or the use of extrusions or bolted or welded bodies may also elicit questionable claims of being too proprietary. OEMs usually generate such assertions when specs do not specify their material of choice and method of construction. Nobody likes a whiner.

Astute purchasers can justify material choices and construction methods. Some fire department shops are capable of repairing body damage, replacing major component parts, and carrying out complete rebuilds. Specifying a material and method of construction familiar to shop personnel may be advantageous and cost-efficient. Shops and personnel may have the specific equipment, training, experience, and expertise to work with one type of material. Why purchase a material they are not familiar with, are not trained to use, or don't have the tools to work with?

Another case for specifying a particular body material is the unsatisfactory performance o