Month: October 2012

Managed Services and the Public Safety Broadband Network

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

One topic that will be of concern when it comes to the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network will be the long-term operations and maintenance aspects. Who will run the State’s PSBN for the long-term? Who will run the internal State agencies and State entities that will access the States PSBN network? Would it be the carriers? Or the OEMs? Or would it be a State P3?
There are a lot of things that come to mind when thinking about this topic like…will it look like a private-sensitive-classified network, or will it be a private ensemble of statewide networks more relying on the “plumbing factor” and leaving the intelligent classified portions to the entities that ride the piping infrastructure?  If it were just a handful of entities then I would go with the highly classified, but given the necessity of multiple statewide entities requiring the access, I would say its better fashioned to a more open architecture with reliance of protection falling on the entities themselves. With that said one has to ask, “then who will run these networks?” After all it’s a lot more than just deploying layers 1-4 in the State PSBN …most of the hard work will actually be with the application layers 5-7 (reference OSI Stack).
The obvious answer lays in the hardening aspects and control of the entities own proportional network concerns. In essence, it is the entities that ride the network that will depict its hardening features. The beauty of it is they don’t have to rely on pacifying a subscriber business model of a typical carrier. Another area of concern is the actual management of the platform in general. In the context there is a lesson to be learned from the carriers.
The carriers, for the last 3-4 years, have been outsourcing the operational control and maintenance of their own networks to a host of third party vendors. This outsourcing is termed “Managed Services”. The term was coined by the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) as a way to isolate the actual design and operational services that is required to run their own equipment. The difficulty comes when they integrate the complex relationships of high-level applications across multiple platforms. This is something the OEMs do not do…or at least not very well. But the OEMs managed to convince some of the national carriers that it was in their best interest for them to manage their own product versus someone else.
Why would the carrier do such a thing? There are a host of reasons, but it’s all about consolidation, market potential, cost and the impacts on the ARPU (Average Rate Per User)… as well as the comfort of long-standing relationships. The carriers see more money in the content of the services they provide than the actual commoditized Internet access model. The overhead of their multiple physical infrastructures is loading their capability to affectively keep up with the decline in their ARPUs, which is forcing the carriers to look for ways to off-load their infrastructure to sustain or increase profit margins. The carriers were faced with a dilemma, so they turned to their long-standing OEM relationships to try and fix the issue.  The OEMs and the carriers came up with a plan to relinquish the risk of running the infrastructure by letting the OEMs managed their own gear. The issue with that is that the overheads for an OEM are more than twice the industry average for service providers, so the figures became a wash…and remain a wash today. In fact some of the largest Managed Services contracts out they are actually losing money. But that’s another topic. The big integrators, i.e. IBM, HP and the likes, stepped in, but their overheads exploded even beyond the OEMs, so the issue still exist today. My opinion the only real answer is to sell or dismantle some of that infrastructure. Good luck in finding a buyer for an old 2G or 3G platform when 4G is now the game.  
So why would managed services work for the PSBN?
The PSBN, more specifically the State run P3 entity, is not an OEM. It is in fact a true service provider for the PSBN. It’s overhead will be managed through a cost + Plus model using man-hours and materials. There are no margins to sustain for product development, research, or marketing and sales.  The State P3 only exist for the deployment, operations and management of the State Public Safety Broadband platform. There are no competing business models except for the resources that have “Public Safety Service” responsibilities within the State…and that competition is only limited to prioritization within the LTE solution itself…which is actually not an issue at all. In essence, the State P3 contractor/awardee will be the Build, Operate and Own model of execution whose primary business model is to run the State PSBN for the long-term.
The attraction of the State P3 Managed Service contract will be the terms of service that are established with the State internal agencies and entities. As an example: a State Transportation Department covering the Highways may sign-up for 20 years terms of service for LTE service from the State P3 PSBN; where as a Power Utility may sign up for 30 years terms of service for its LTE Service. These are definitely terms of service that any managed service provider would love to win. On top of the terms of service mandates there will also be mandates for maintenance activities on hardened tower locations or communication nodes throughout the entire State.
What about the data and control center elements? What about Cyber Security controls? There will be a hoist of “other” managed service plays as well. Someone will have to run the various State agency and entities own data and communication solutions. Why wouldn’t there be an opportunity for a Managed Service contract with the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Transportation, within the State? There are a host of opportunities that lie within the State’s PSBN effort…all of which are great for the State, great for the economy and great for the Nations employment numbers. 
The necessities to run the physical infrastructure are evident, but what’s more impressive is the opportunity to manage the applications horizontally between the agencies, of which all communicate through the State PSBN. The developments within the application space start to present themselves, structurally, through the process and data control elements that are essential to the hardening/protected applications themselves. There will be a whole ecosystem of data centralization, manipulation and storage requirements that will integrate across multiple functioning enterprise solutions. Developing “Apps” is only a small piece of the much larger picture.
Just some guy and a blog…

Response to the NTIA (FirstNet) Request For Information (RFI) due November 1st

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

First, I really want to express my gratitude for what this board is undertaking. I know it will be a long journey and I look forward to its future.

In reviewing the presentation for the FirstNet Broadband Public Safety Network I noticed a few things.

  • The proposal was a good presentation outlining the overall goal of FirstNet and then gave a rendition of a model to move forward with.
  • The solution presented a “subscriber based model” which I expected
    • In doing so it required a multi-State, Multi-Regional approach in order to make it work.
    • It brought up the context of Public-Private Partnerships but from I could gather it was not a true P3 concept; it stressed more the relationship of products being introduced into the network.
  • It was clear that a true “Needs Analysis” has not being conducted and was only limited to Public Safety entities; not Public Safety Service entities…there’s a big difference.
  • The presentation outlined a multi-tiered multi-operator framework, which may not be realistic. If we try to focus on too many variables that can contribute to the network we will spin our wheels on trying to execute. We need to focus initially on the FirstNet Private Network first.
  • It also stressed a multi-layer of networks on top of the Band 14 network of FirstNet for resiliency.
To review my NTIA submission follow this link:  Dr. Michael Myers
My primary sticking point on this presentation was the belief that a “Subscriber model” is what FirstNet should concentrate on. This is a good business case for a commercial carrier, but not a private network for the PSBN, especially a private network with multiple layers of commercial networks as backup. If the course is set to go this route the deployment will lack the required funding to make it happen. There simply won’t be enough “subscribers” to make it work. Case in point is the carriers themselves. Why is that they are moving away from the “subscriber model” if their own ARPU’s (Average rate Per User) are declining? It costs more to try maintain the network and to upgrade to new platforms than the ARPUs bring in return. Why would we push this model onto the PSBN?
I am presenting an alternative Public Private Partnership model that not only brings in enough recurring revenue to fund the deployment of the entire PSBN, plus its additional O&M (Operations and Maintenance) cost, but it also avoids taxpayer money. And I don’t need multi-State and multi-Regional input…all it needs is one State and its core Public Safety Service entities.
The reason the “subscriber model” presented requires Multi-State and Multi-Regional coordination is to boost the number of actual subscriber units. My only question is who will benefit from the subscriber costs? FirstNet, the Vendors, or the carriers? Through my model it won’t require a multi-State or multi-Regional aspect to make it work. And the revenue goes to the State and FirstNet –as well as its Public Private Partnership. The handsets become a capital cost measure that is allocated under the overall business case expenditures, thus a Chief of Police doesn’t have to worry about the cost of handsets and the recurring monthly charge for access. Those cost items are inherent to the overall architecture.
Overall the model I am presenting has already been validated with a working business case and thus should be considered for the Band 14 PSBN network business case.
As it relates to the technical solutions of multi-layer networks they are all perfectly doable if FirstNet sees the need. In actuality they integrate easier and become more effective under my model than the prescribed “subscriber model”.  In essence the “Multi-State or Multi-Regional” Band A Operators are the States Public Private Partnership.
Just some guy and a blog…

Should FirstNet go the way of the Commercial Carriers?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Prior to this documents creation I did a financial estimate on the one common element that would connect the statewide initiative for PSBN with the business aspirations of an electric cooperative. But this concept is the same across all the vertical industries, i.e. Transportation, Police, Fire, EMS, Agriculture, Forestry and many others. So if you read this write-up please view it as pliable to all those industries that have “Public Safety Service” requirements during an emergency.

In analyzing this Electric Cooperatives business model against its planned partnership with the State Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) I focused on the one common element was the necessity of both parties; that being broadband access, or 4G services. Both parties need this technology to accommodate their individual business plan. One should consider that one of the primary purposes for doing this business case is to demonstrate a viable path for the Electric Co-Op to refocus its intent towards the business of providing power…not being a telecom company. This same concept can be used for a mass transit system or a local police force. In doing so the PSBN presents a great opportunity for this Electric Co-Op to align itself with its core business at the same time off-loading the risk of complex, and costly, telecommunication platforms.

In the past this Electric Co-Op, as did all Utility providers, were forced under market demands to augment their power distribution model with the risk of advanced telecommunication platforms such as T1s, microwave, 3G Cellular, ZigBee, WiFi, WiMax and now LTE. These platforms immediately began to challenge and burden the overall business objective of providing power with unavoidable higher cost of communication deployment’s; plus the introduction of uncontrollable technology curves; and the requirement for high-salaried engineers that really have nothing to do with power. With the introduction of the State’s PSBN now presents the opportunity for this Electric Co-Op, as it does for all power Utilities, the chance to merge its communication needs with one single, private, broadband provider that can administer to the direct needs of all that ride on its airwaves.

The concept of out-sourcing the communication needs of the Utilities is not new. Such out-sourcing strategies have been tried in the past with commercial carriers, and although the commercial carriers are in the business of telecommunication specifically, they do not have the same alignment of business philosophies. In short, it’s not only that the technical aspects have to integrate and interoperate, but also the entire ecosystem of the business case has to align. In this case the carriers are in the business of selling subscriber based services through their telecommunication networks; where as an Electric Co-op is, primarily, only using its telecommunication platform to support its primary business objective of selling power. Thus, it has been the tradition that such relationships, although started with good intentions, end with utter disgrace or chaos where one part is reaping the benefits over another.

Somewhere along the way the Utility market realized it had to build a private network to sustain its own requirements of providing power, thus such rollouts as WiMax and private backhaul decisions, but now unforeseen events are limiting that strategy as well.  With the shortage of spectrum the Utilities, as are others in the vertical markets, are being forced to consider alternatives, but reality is starting to set in that the market forces are against them and that the expenditures of the past, to sustain their own private communication needs, will increase dramatically across the board. These new platforms are so complex and frequency specific that they require a business case in itself to achieve suitable results. But an opportunity presents itself…. the State Public Safety Broadband Network.

The State PSBN is only a sub-set of the much larger National Public Safety Broadband Network. This network has the business philosophies that align perfectly with those of the Utilities market (as with all critical infrastructure based vertical markets). In essence it’s not about sustaining subscribers on the network to generate revenue; it’s about sustaining a vital lifeline of critical communications to protect critical assets of our great nation – in this case those assets being our electrical grid.

The State has been mandated by the Federal Government to use LTE (Long Term Evolution) broadband access as its primary tool for communications for Public Safety. The Federal Government’s decision stems from the alignment, and necessity, for the Public Safety Broadband Network to use consumer based commercial carrier technology that is off-the-shelf capable and that has a proven track record with a sustained foreseeable future. This technology has the potential to ultimately replace all known wireless platforms and will cover 99% of the geographic landmass of the United States. It will also be the primary tool for First Responder communications.

Since the introduction of this effort there are those that pursue the hope that because the technical platform aligns with the commercial carrier market, which is deploying the exact same technology, that it would somehow provide an advantage to building the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network. But, given the nature of the technical hardening requirements, and the federal requirement of “self-funding” capability, it is becoming infeasible for the carriers to sustain a viable business model of revenue collection to sustain its profit margins. Thus the same issue that the Utilities faced in the past, that of alignment of business objectives, still presents an unwinnable situation today…and for the foreseeable future. The only viable solution is a private solution. This is exactly what someone was thinking when they originally put the legislation together to build a separate broadband network for Public Safety.

This Electric Cooperative has similar demands in its requirement for broadband technology and it also has an opportunity before them. It’s inherent that such technology must support, for the long-term, its deployment of sub-station and electrification communications; to include it’s mandated SMART Metering program by the Department of Energy. The original intent of the Utilities Industry was to utilize a broadband technology that was prevalent, and being pushed by industry vendors, as a viable solution that meets those demands. In the more recent past the technologies of 3G and WiMax were being advertised by the vendors, and the commercial carriers, to all of the Utility market as the technology that will win the broadband market over. WiMax is a sister technology of LTE, and was actually the first to market in the commercial carrier world. Although the technology is still deployable for the purposes stated, it has been illustrated that all the commercial carriers in the world, and thus the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMS), have chosen the LTE technology for the consumer market. Thus the technologies that were sold, primarily by the same commercial carriers, have now declared end-of-life.

“Since we now know that Sprint plans to build and operate its own LTE network, it’s pretty fair to say that WiMAX is dead as a technology for consumer handsets in the United States. Once Sprint gets its LTE network up and running, it will mean that all three major wireless carriers in the United States support LTE, as both Verizon and AT&T have already commercially deployed LTE in various markets. The chief reason for WiMAX’s downfall in the consumer handset space is a simple one: The tech industry likes uniformity and WiMAX wasn’t adopted by enough carriers to make it the de facto standard for 4G mobile data in the U.S.” (LTE World, 2011)[1]
As was presented in the opening paragraphs of this summary, this Electric Co-op’s decision to go with WiMax stresses the point that the “technology curve” is a risky business model to deal with, especially when it relates to telecommunications and its support implications on the core business of providing electrical services to its client base. Therefore, this Electric Co-op, as should all Electric providers and critical infrastructure players, must utilize its expenditure of the WiMax platform to the extent that it’s viably possible. As for the basis of this Electric Co-Op’s business case; it’s my intention to eliminate any future risk yet stay diverse in our capabilities by aligning the Co-op’s telecommunication needs in support of its core business requirements. The PSBN provides this Co-Op, as well as all others in the vertical markets, that opportunity to diversify that risk pattern under the statewide, and national, PSBN initiative. 

The statewide PSBN initiative will be a “private” LTE broadband network. This is the only viable solution. The network is planned to cover 99% of all the geographic landmass, thus any and all Electric Co-op’s can, not only cover their own client footprints, but also off-set its expenditures to date by rolling them into an annual payment to the State P3 effort. For this one electric Co-Op they can recover the expenditures of the WiMax decision by rolling it into the overall annual payment to the State P3. As with any technology, we can utilize the WiMax platform for additional support services, to include Internet access for the client base. So in essence, not only can we recoup the cost of WiMax, we can continue to generate revenue off its services as long as the commercial OEM market produces products that will work on it.

But, ultimately what this means is that the WiMax platform has now become a proprietary platform. As with proprietary technology the cost impacts start to rise due to the lack of support research and development to expand the technology further into the future. Without the support of the consumer market…the market itself starts to shrink. Given the market acceptance and the amount of WiMax technology deployed there should be a 10-year life expectancy remaining as a viable platform in support of SMART grid.

Being that both the State, and this Electric Cooperative, need the broadband technology to support their individual business aspirations, it becomes evident that by properly aligning the business intentions (not the just the technical) with the needs of both parties, we could help foster a mutual agreement for a shared service platform of LTE. A shared service platform that can expand beyond just Utility market and ultimately to all State internal agencies and entities that have similar demands for broadband technology.  This relationship could explore the topic of shared infrastructure to eliminate, or reduce, cost impacts for the statewide build out as well as align State interests for job creation, private investment and centralization of its communication and IT (Information Technology) platforms, such a platform that would benefit all who interface on it. This is something a commercial carrier agreement, whose intention it is to provide the PSBN solution, cannot provide. 

The only way to foster this relationship, and others, is through a Public Private Partnership.

Just some guy and a blog…

[1] Network World, 2011. “LTE vs. WiMAX: When it comes to the U.S. handset market, LTE has landed a knockout blow”. By Brad Reed, Network World. November 02, 2011