The four public safety (PS) frequency advisory committees (FACs) process requests for 150-470 MHz channels affording all applicants an exclusive frequency assignment. Is this process supported by the rules? It is not. But should EWA care that the PS FACs conduct business this way, or as they call it, under their “coordination philosophy?” We don’t. They can do whatever they want. But we do care when this extraordinary public safety protocol results in PS FACs claiming that there are no PS channels available, thus creating the opportunity for PS applicants to request waivers to use Industrial/Business (I/B) channels. Enough is enough. The I/B FACs have an obligation to protect their limited spectrum from encroachment under specious claims that the PS spectrum cupboard is bare. Not so. They are out of spectrum due to their “coordination philosophy” that PS channels cannot be shared, even by mobile-only systems, without the incumbent’s consent, which apparently is rarely forthcoming. EWA is presently embroiled in a case where a fire department is seeking FCC approval to use an I/B channel with 18 incumbents within 50 miles as opposed to sharing one PS channel with a single PS incumbent. This is ludicrous. Of course, there are a lot of moving parts in this matter, but many of the associated filings are simply white noise and not particularly relevant. What matters are answers to the following questions. Is the claim from a PS FAC that there are no PS channels available for the fire department justification for a waiver when based on a “coordination philosophy” that is not supported by FCC rules? It wouldn’t seem so, especially given the limited extent of the channel occupancy by PS entities in the area. And secondly, should I/B incumbents be obligated to assume the potential liability of sharing a channel with a fire department without having a say in the matter? Is this prudent spectrum policy? It can’t be. It shouldn’t be. Is this a level playing field? It is not.