Kinda a dang if you do and a dang if you don't. FCC regulations change, frequently. As does their guidelines.
25 KHZ to a 12.5 MHZ spectrum really does not change things, for some / alot of , agencys.
I see no need for an agency to go out and buy new radios, UNLESS they want to file an application for new radio frequencys. Then since the new frequencys will be under the new 12.5 KHZ spectrum, yes you would have to upgrade your radios. But if you are not changing radio freqs in the applicable bands, WHY go out and spend thousands of dollars, and buy new radios to be compliable. This mostly for rural and semi rural areas where the radio freqs are the same, as for mutal aid for other ajoining agencys.
" Oh my gosh, the radio spectrum has changed per FCC regulations. We must come up with thousands and thousands of dollars to buy new radios." Well, not really. Not unless you need to transmit, or use new radio freqs in the new spectrum.
The hype, the hype.
FF - Medic !!!
Sorry, but you've been misinformed. That's incorrect.
The reason for narrowbanding is ostensibly to create more channels. That doesn't always work, however. On UHF, where channel centers are spaced in 6.25 kHz increments (in practice, the 6.25 kHz incrementalization is only useful for NXDN emissions) and most commonly apportioned in 12.5 kHz increments for narrowband systems, this is true. As spectrum doesn't overlap, adjacent frequencies may be assigned closer, often without need for geographic separation. On VHF, there is still overlap and the creation of more channels with 7.5 kHz channel centers still requires adjacent channel protection, often in the form of geographic separation of some sort. If agencies ignored the narrowbanding mandate, both UHF (with neatly conforming bandwidths and channel centers) and VHF (a nightmare for many reasons), these interstitial channels that allow for more densely apportioned use would be completely unusable because of spectral overlap between the narrowband 7.5 kHz adjacent and the incumbent wideband.
I think the misunderstanding is in the frequency's channel center. Your agency can have a legacy 20K0 channel center, but they must still reduce the bandwidth on it. It affects everyone on either side of your agency.
So, no, it's not optional. Your agency will have to do it, like it or not. Filing a waiver can DELAY the process if the Commission approves it, but WILL NOT get the agency a dispensation to continue to operate in wideband without some definitive timetable and end-date. I've been told that these waivers will not be rubber stamped and that they should be filed before the end of the year in order to be processed on time. Yes, narrowbanding does benefit some frequency bands and some users. No, it's not magic or a miracle fix.
What some here have observed is that NYPD is proposing a forklift replacement of their LMR system with unproven technology that is vaporware for the proposed application. I'll add that LTE has no provisions for peer-to-multi-peer off-network communication, making it potentially unsafe for public safety application as a voice replacement technology... as it stands right now. We'll see where manufacturers take this. Proprietary "enhancements" and "solutions" aside, there probably will be no interest in 3GPP to consider off-network implementation (going off-network with a cellphone means it is using radio spectrum without paying some company to use it, and that is incongruent with their world view), meaning another very expensive device.
Anyway, the question is should the FCC allow an agency to not narrowband because of vaporware that's not ready for prime time.
Seems a few more active duty and recent duty "responders" and a few less lobbyists, politicians, and sales engineers (who've never, ever worn a uniform - or moldy oldies/rubber guns that have been driving a desk for the last 30 years) should have been involved in this one.