Lyse Tele: Dangerous advice from Telenor

Safety and resilience in times of crisis depend not only on available technology, but also on how it is used. Recently, Telenor gave some advice to the authorities on how the emergency network of the future should be realised. More good advice, but one of them worries me. Namely, Telenor proposes that one operator should have the main responsibility for the new emergency network, while at the same time they add in a subordinate clause that all networks must be put into use without explaining in more detail how or what they really mean by that. For some, this may seem like a simple and good solution, while my spontaneous reaction is real concern for what Telenor really wants with the plan.

It is of course important to have clear and strong management, but it is also important to spread risk and have good alternatives. And by alternatives, I don’t just mean backup solutions if the operator with primary responsibility is unable to deliver. This is done by involving all three mobile operators, to ensure that the emergency network’s infrastructure achieves the necessary redundancy and thus increased reliability.

Telenor says it is permissible to be inspired by the Norwegian Armed Forces. It is wise advice, and it is precisely the Armed Forces that are keen to use all three mobile networks and satellite solutions in an equal way in order to avoid being dependent on a single operator. It is a strategy that makes sense when we look at Ukraine, for example, which last year experienced Russian hackers paralyzing the former Telenor-owned Kyivstar, with the consequence that the country’s largest telecom operator was down for several days. The military in Ukraine, on the other hand, had access to several networks, which reduced the extent of the damage considerably.

Need all mobile operators

We at Lyse og Ice have consistently argued for a model where the Directorate for Social Security and Emergency Preparedness (DSB), or a similar operator on behalf of DSB, operates the MCX solution in collaboration with all mobile operators and possibly also actors that offer satellite communication. This means that Nødnetnet must be like a service provider who is allowed to do something no one else can, i.e. be able to use all the coverage available in the country. (MCX stands for “mission critical” services such as voice, data and video. Ed.)

We encourage the authorities to choose a strategy that includes all operators in the design of the new emergency network, thereby avoiding lock-in, increased switching costs and reduced diversity. The experience of Ukraine is a stark reminder of why it will be a wise decision. Such an approach will not only promote competition and innovation, but also ensure a more robust and secure infrastructure for the future for all of us.

We have the technology that makes it possible to choose a solution that takes care of the needs of all of Norway’s emergency response actors, not just the technical or commercial interests of one telecom operator.