By Staff Writer
As many of you know, there is a group opposing the 4.9 reallocation that appears to be financed and supported by the utilities industry, Verizon, and T-Mobile. (I suspect these groups are financing this effort simply because of the big guns in Washington DC who have been hired to lead their effort. That doesn’t come cheap, so someone is paying.) What is clear is that this is an effort by these commercial interests to get free spectrum for those utilities and for the carriers that don’t support FirstNet. This will certainly have a negative impact on your public safety broadband network. The other thing that is clear is that they have hired former NYPD Chief Ken Corey to be the face of the organization. So, who is Ken Corey and what are his “creds”?
Chief Kenneth Corey, NYPD – Retired
- Chief of Department for 9 months from Jan 2022 – Nov 2022
- Chief of Training Dec 2020 – Dec 2021
- Assistant Chief Jan 2018 to Dec 2020, Commanding Officer Patrol Borough Staten Island
- Assistant Chief Dec 2015 to Dec 2018, Commanding Office First Deputy Commissioner
- Deputy Chief Oct 2013 to Dec 2015, Executive Officer Patrol Borough Brooklyn South
- Inspector Aug 2010 to Oct 2013, Commanding Officer Medical Division
- Deputy Inspector Jan 2009 to Aug 2010, Commanding Officer 76th Precinct
- Captain Jun 2005 to Jan 2009, Commanding Officer Brooklyn South Investigation Unit
- Lieutenant Oct 1998 to Jun 2005, Commanding Officer Queens DA Detective Squad
- Sergeant Mar 1994 to Oct 1998
- Police Officer 1990 to Mar 1994
Clearly, Chief Corey is a skilled administrator and a lifelong servant to the city of New York. Those are accomplishments to be proud of and I am sure he is the kind of cop you want next to you in a street fight.
What he isn’t is…
- He has no noted experience in public safety communications.
- He has no experience in nationwide spectrum policy.
- He has no direct experience in the deployment and use of public safety communications.
- He has no experience in working outside of New York City on public safety communications.
- He has little to no understanding on how most of America’s public safety use spectrum and technology.
- He has no experience in firefighting, let alone Western wildland fire fighting.
So, when you hear Ken Corey talk about 4.9 GHz public safety broadband, please understand that he has little to no experience or real world understanding of how this spectrum works or what is best for our nation’s first responders. He only knows what he has been told by his commercial employers. I think it is quite obvious that he is a paid consultant who is trying to persuade America’s first responders to give away your spectrum to the utilities and to undermine the FirstNet Authority network in support of Verizon and T-Mobile. Indeed, these are the wireless carriers that never even bid for the opportunity to serve public safety and have always said FirstNet will fail. Once again, they are on the wrong side of public safety.
This article is misleading! No one is trying to reallocate 4.9, the proposal is to allow Critical Infrastructure users use of spectrum (with PS preemption ability) that has been unused for nearly 20 years. The question yet to be resolved is who will manage this process. The current proposal is to allow the public safety coordinators to manage the band which will protect and advocate for public safety where used now and in the future. Doing nothing will guarantee another 20+ years where valuable spectrum remains unused.
I’m Mark Crosby, Chief Strategy Officer at the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA), one of six organizations that formed the 4.9 GHz Coalition in 2022 (FCCA, IMSA, NSA, UTC, API, and EWA). The Coalition remains active and has recommended to the FCC that the optimum approach to manage the 4.9 GHz band in the future is to utilize the inherent capabilities of the four FCC-certified, public safety frequency advisory committees. I have read the article “Public Safety Broadband 4.9 GHz Spectrum – A Look at the Opposition ” that was published earlier this week by “Daily Dispatch” and by “All Things FirstNet”. No author was identified other than a “Staff Writer”. That makes perfect sense as it would not be a wise career move to take credit for this article since not much of the content is accurate. First, the author states that there is a group “opposing the 4.9 GHz reallocation that appears to be financed and supported by the utility industry, Verizon and T-Mobile.” How can CERCI oppose a reallocation when there is no reallocation being proposed or considered by the FCC? What reallocation is the author talking about? Sharing spectrum that is not in use is not a reallocation. The unfinished business that remains before the FCC is who should manage the band for public safety. No one at this point has an advantage and having the public safety organizations assume management control is not a reallocation. The spectrum has been and will remain allocated for public safety use possibly coupled with ruthless preemption rights. Not supporting the assignment of 4.9 GHz management responsibilities to FirstNet is not “opposing the 4.9 GHz reallocation”. FirstNet doesn’t have any more rights, assumed privileges or advantages than anyone else at this point. Sure, the Coalition for Emergency Response and Critical Infrastructure (CERCI) may receive funding from T-Mobile and Verizon. You don’t think that perhaps other organizations in this fray don’t receive funding? And so what, this is how many things are accomplished in Washington, D.C. and one would be greatly naïve to think otherwise. But whoever may have funded this article should ask for their money back. I sincerely doubt any utility is funding CERCI. The commercial interests are not looking to access 4.9 GHz for free. That’s an incredible fabrication. Where is that request in the public record? If 4.9 GHz has not been deployed by a public safety entity since the band was first made available in 2004, what the heck is the harm in letting a critical infrastructure entity use the spectrum where it is not being used under the threat of ruthless preemption? Would it be ok to access the spectrum if no public safety entity has expressed an interest say in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, 100 years? When does this foolishness cease? And since when has the 4.9 GHz band been a part of the public safety broadband network? For me, this article loses all credibility when it takes shots at Chief Kenneth Corey’s bona fides. I don’t know the man, but what is the benefit of besmirching Chief Corey? It seems an act of desperation. That effort alone should warn you that the article is not to be trusted.