 136 and 174 MHz and UHF between 380 and 470 MHz. The theory is that LTE will provide a broadband bridge between these legacy networks and will allow the public-safety sector to benefit from global-scale economies with an opportunity to amortise research, development and manufacturing investment across billions of user devices per year. From a specialist user-experience perspective this should provide an opportunity to source standard form factor phones, smart phones, tablet/slates and lap tops at consumer prices. Ideally, this user equipment would also be able to access commercial LTE networks. It would seem initially attractive to consider integration with the US 850 band rather than LTE 700. Future iterations of P25 could include a 5-MHz LTE channel adjacent to the US 850 commercial networks as or when or if they transition to LTE. The problem with this from an RF performance perspective is that even extending the US 850 band by 10 MHz to 35 MHz decreases user equipment sensitivity by 1 dB. Here, we are suggesting adding 18 MHz to create a passband of 43 MHz. This would involve at least as much loss again. Coupling P25 radios with the LTE channel allocations in the 700-MHz band would require a dual-mode radio to support P25 TX at 806 to 824 MHz and theoretically at least low-band LTE 700 TX down at 698 MHz. This is 126 MHz of operational bandwidth equivalent to a 16% ratio of the centre of the band. The stretch on the RX path would be similar. This is technically challenging and commercially unlikely. In practice, the user equipment would be several radios in one box. A P25 dual-mode radio that interoperated just with the LTE national public safety 700-MHz network would be easier to implement and the narrowband public-safety bandwidth could be included as well, but the devices would still need to stretch on the receive path from 758 MHz to 869 MHz (111 MHz) or 746 MHz to include Verizon Band 13 (123 MHz). Either option would still need a dual or triple front end to be sufficiently efficient. The problem could 