Regional Radio Infrastructure: How Shared Systems Enable Encryption Waves
Understanding the infrastructure behind coordinated encryption decisions is essential for effective advocacy
When Seattle, Federal Way, and Bothell all announce encryption within months of each other, it's not coincidence—they're all on the same regional radio system. Understanding how shared infrastructure enables coordinated encryption is crucial for communities fighting transparency loss.
The pattern
Regional radio systems create conditions for encryption to spread rapidly. Once infrastructure supports encryption and one major agency adopts it, neighboring agencies face pressure to follow. What looks like independent decisions by separate departments is often a coordinated wave enabled by shared technology.
How regional systems work
Traditional radio communications required each agency to build and maintain its own infrastructure—towers, equipment, frequencies. This was expensive and created interoperability problems when agencies needed to communicate during emergencies.
Regional radio systems solve this by creating shared infrastructure:
Shared towers
Multiple agencies use the same network of radio towers, reducing costs and expanding coverage
Pooled frequencies
Trunked systems share spectrum efficiently, assigning channels dynamically as needed
Interoperability
All agencies on the system can communicate during multi-agency incidents
Regional governance
Oversight boards make policy decisions that affect all participating agencies
Major regional systems
These systems serve as case studies in how shared infrastructure shapes encryption decisions:
Case study: PSERN and the Washington wave
The Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN) illustrates how regional infrastructure enables coordinated encryption.
PSERN goes live
King County's new regional radio system launches, replacing aging infrastructure. The P25-based system supports optional encryption.
Federal Way encrypts
Federal Way Police Department announces full encryption, citing the new PSERN capabilities.
Bothell follows
Bothell Fire and Police announce encryption "to align with regional partners."
Seattle announces tactical encryption
Seattle Police and Fire announce partial encryption for tactical channels, keeping dispatch open—for now.
The pattern emerges
Within months of PSERN's full deployment, multiple agencies began encrypting. The shared infrastructure provided both technical capability and political cover ("we're aligning with the regional system").
Case study: NJICS and the New Jersey explosion
New Jersey leads the nation in encryption adoption, with 45+ new agencies encrypting in 2026 alone. The state's NJICS infrastructure plays a central role.
The NJICS system provides P25 infrastructure across all 21 New Jersey counties. As agencies migrate to the state system, many are choosing to enable encryption—a policy decision, not a technical requirement.
Essex County demonstrates the cascade effect: when major agencies like Newark and Jersey City encrypted, surrounding towns (Belleville, Bloomfield, Orange, East Orange) quickly followed, creating a county-wide blackout.
Case study: ARMER and the Twin Cities blackout
Minnesota's ARMER system—one of the oldest statewide P25 networks—shows how established infrastructure eventually enables encryption waves.
ARMER launches
Minnesota builds statewide P25 infrastructure, initially operating in clear mode.
Hennepin County Sheriff encrypts
First major ARMER agency to encrypt, citing state data privacy regulations.
Minneapolis Police encrypts
In the city where George Floyd was killed, police encrypt all dispatch traffic.
St. Paul follows
Minnesota's capital city encrypts, completing the Twin Cities blackout.
The Minneapolis connection
Minneapolis—where leaked radio traffic helped expose police misconduct during George Floyd's murder—now encrypts all communications. The ARMER infrastructure that enabled transparency for decades now enables its opposite.
The domino effect explained
Regional systems create conditions for rapid encryption adoption through several mechanisms:
Technical capability
Once infrastructure supports encryption, the technical barrier disappears. Agencies don't need to invest in new systems—they just enable a feature.
Interoperability arguments
"If neighboring agencies encrypt, we need to for joint operations." This argument pressures holdouts even though interoperability doesn't require encryption.
Political cover
"We're following regional standards" shifts responsibility from local officials to the regional system.
Vendor pressure
Radio vendors often recommend encryption as "best practice" during system upgrades, creating artificial momentum.
How to fight encryption at the regional level
Understanding regional infrastructure changes how advocates should approach the fight:
Identify governance bodies
Find out who oversees your regional system. PSERN has a board, NJICS has state oversight, ARMER has regional councils. These are the decision-makers.
Demand regional policies
Push for system-wide transparency requirements. If the regional policy mandates unencrypted dispatch, individual agencies can't easily encrypt.
Coordinate across communities
Connect with advocates in other cities on your regional system. Unified pressure across multiple jurisdictions is more effective than isolated efforts.
Request public hearings
Before any agency on the regional system encrypts, demand public discussion. Make the governance body address transparency concerns.
Propose alternatives
Present regional solutions: delayed feeds for all agencies, media access programs, or partial encryption that keeps dispatch open.
Attend regional meetings
Regional boards meet regularly. Show up, speak during public comment, and make transparency a recurring agenda item.
What this means for advocacy
- Encryption is contagious — when one agency on a regional system encrypts, others face pressure to follow.
- Infrastructure enables but doesn't require — regional P25 systems support encryption but can operate entirely in clear mode.
- Follow the governance — regional systems have oversight bodies, and that's where advocacy should focus.
- Coordinate regionally — communities on the same system should work together.
- Act early — once encryption momentum builds, it's harder to stop. Engage before decisions are made.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a regional radio infrastructure system?
A regional radio infrastructure system is a shared network of radio towers, frequencies, and equipment that multiple public safety agencies use for communications. Instead of each city or county building its own system, agencies share a common platform that enables interoperability and reduces costs. Examples include PSERN in Washington, NJICS in New Jersey, and ARMER in Minnesota.
How do shared radio systems enable encryption waves?
When agencies share infrastructure, encryption decisions become contagious. Once the regional system is upgraded to support encryption and some agencies begin using it, others face pressure to follow. Technical arguments ("we need interoperability") and social pressure ("neighboring agencies have encrypted") create a domino effect that can encrypt entire regions rapidly.
Does regional infrastructure require encryption?
No. Regional systems like P25 networks can operate entirely in clear (unencrypted) mode. Encryption is always a policy choice, not a technical requirement. Agencies that claim encryption was 'required' for their new system are misleading the public - the system supports both encrypted and unencrypted operation.
Can individual agencies opt out of encryption on a shared system?
Yes, individual agencies can choose to operate unencrypted even on infrastructure that supports encryption. However, there may be social and political pressure to conform, and some agencies use interoperability concerns as justification for encrypting. The decision remains a policy choice, not a technical mandate.
What is P25 and how does it relate to regional systems?
P25 (Project 25) is a digital radio standard used by most regional public safety systems. It was designed to ensure interoperability between different agencies and manufacturers. P25 supports optional encryption but can operate in clear mode. Many regional systems are built on P25 infrastructure.
How can communities fight encryption on regional systems?
Focus advocacy on the regional governance bodies that make policy decisions. Request public hearings before encryption decisions, demand transparency alternatives like delayed feeds or media access, and connect with other communities in your region to present a united front. Regional systems have regional governance - engage at that level.
Research your regional system
Find out what radio infrastructure your community uses and who governs it.