Is there life within the FirstNet Board conducting secret meetings and not involving sitting board members? Is there truth to a recent motion that will impact the development of the Nations First Responder Public Safety Broadband Network — emphasis on “Public Safety Network”?

What a nice and heated debate today. Finally it looks as if there is some life on the FirstNet Board. I’m specifically addressing Chief Fitzgerald’s motion to the board and a breaking point to the finality of 9-months of frustration on the behalf of the PSAC. 

There may be something to Chief Fitzgerald’s motion. I believe what the Chief is trying to convey is that the typical process of transparency that you would expect to see at any local school board illustrates how ineffective the FirstNet process truly is. Why is this so hard to understand? This open and transparent process is nothing new. It’s as if the Board has taken upon themselves that they themselves must physically build the network and are charging ahead to make that happen. That’s impossible given their short terms on the board. Unless of course the Chief is right and there are alternative agendas at play? I mean we are talking about the most valuable piece of spectrum property that the United States has to offer. It is most undoubtedly very attractive to the carrier commercial market space, so why wouldn’t they do whatever they could to obtain the rights to that spectrum?  

Has anyone in the public seen this “Business Plan” that has supposedly been developed? We heard about it a few months ago but no one outside of the board has seen or heard anything…..as well as Chief Fitzgerald it seems. 

Why are we speaking about “App Stores” when we don’t even know how the entire network will be paid for and who will fund the network?

Why do the Apps being spoken about directly connect the commercial wireless to the private protected network of the PSBN? Shouldn’t we have a network first?

What happened to cyber-security concerns?

Why would a sitting board member go on a national forum to state he is not getting the access and the information needed to participate? Do we assume that a 40 year veteran of Public Safety, and the pinnacle of the Police hierarchy, would lie to us….at an open forum to the nation?

Is there a hint of truth here?

It’s not so much the specific tools, apps and designs that are being presented, as it is the process of how they are being created. The whole process of a “Board” conducting preliminary designs, application development and fostering carrier relationships is inappropriate. I would envision that the new General Manager (who comes from Verizon and which opens even more doors of bias) would be the one actually performing these tasks…not the “Board”. I believe this is the basis for Chief Fitzgerald’s motion. It’s as if we are hearing about the need for such a great and all-encompassing network and how they will work with the States, tribes and territories, yet all we see from the webcasted board meetings are solutions without any input from anyone outside of the immediate board. How do we get to solutions when we don’t know how it will be funded and coordinated with State input? The accusation from a sitting board member who states that he isn’t even part of the discussions surrounding the design; the business model ; the carrier relations; nor the acts of execution, concerns me greatly. It should concern all of us. 

This is NOT a commercial company. I’m afraid that the current FirstNet Board is taking us down a path of “carrier commercialization” that will drastically harm our ability to perform First Response. The Chief is right in that the network belongs to our First Responder capability. Maybe he is right in that we should have never called upon executives, that are accustomed to building carrier commercial networks, to build our nations Public Safety Broadband Network. The carrier model for development is not the solution for FirstNet. Just because the carriers are in the business of providing commercial voice and data services to the general public, does not mean they are the ones who know how to build a large private public safety solution.

To clarify, there is one thing that I do not agree with Chief Fitzgerald and that is the statement that it is Public Safety’s network….when in fact it is the peoples network being utilized by Public Safety. I do not feel comfortable with a carrier designing, developing, implementing and operating a network that is there to protect me and my family if something drastic were to happen. The stigmatism of a commercial carrier will always be held to their standard of revenue based support operations. I, we, cannot move beyond the stereotype that the intentions of the carrier provided network will not be compromised by a commercial carrier thought process. Outside of the accusations of not being incorporated into the daily dealings of the FirstNet I believe Chief Fitzgerald highlights the important fact that our network design, and its implementation, may be compromised by carrier intentions that do not match those intentions of the Public Safety. 

Our first objective with building this all-encompassing broadband network should start with a business plan that specifically addresses the funding and investment scenarios and overall all management before we start engaging such things as design and app development. The development of this business plan should be open and transparent to the public. This is the mission of the board.

It’s like I just told my kid we are going to go to Disney World so he starts walking without knowing how we plan to pay for it or how we plan to get there. Do we take a train, plane, car or boat? When do we go? What will we do when we get there? Who will go with us? Our funding will dictate that.

Just some guy and a blog….

From my interpretation and experience the GSA, or General Services Organization, is the agency within the federal government that takes care of most advanced IT and telecom necessities that are required by any of the federal agencies. But in this case I’m more interested in the telecom and cyber security portions.  How does GSA play in FirstNet? How will it interface with the deployment and the long-term maintenance? How will it interface with a State initiative under a Public Private Partnership?

The Public Safety Broadband Network is physically nothing more than a private 4G broadband network. It will be technically the same, as a commercially available broadband service, yet should remain physically separate for cyber-security concerns. The big difference is that it will be private, truly hardened and specifically used to support our First Responders during catastrophic events, but will remain isolated and inclusive of all the necessary secondary responders in direct support of the First Responders. Maybe not the only way, but undoubtedly the best way, to fully design, deploy and maintain this network will be through the use of State born Public Private Partnership and funded by private equity team, through a competitive process, and controlled by FirstNet Governance that maintains continuity and interoperability throughout all 56 states and territories.

How will the GSA perform its duties under such a framework of a FirstNet sponsored — yet executed under a state born Public Private Partnership? The answer lies within the broadband requirements for the federal agencies using FirstNet as its broadband services company. A state sponsored, yet FirstNet supported, Public Private Partnership (P3) is nothing more than the establishment of a private broadband company that works at the state level, but gets its primary requirements from FirstNet.

Essentially the federal agencies that need broadband service under FirstNet will be viewed as clients on the network…. paying clients as is the case for most internal state agencies and entities…. to the state P3 broadband company. What those federal agencies will need is a representative who can help control the interface of requirements across boarders — as well as inter-agency requirements. This is a game best played by a centralized organization like the GSA. With a standardized approach established by FirstNet, each state can initiate a similar inter-state interoperability solution that would allow for both technically physical roaming capabilities, as well as financial governance controls through interoperable service agreements between the states. With standing long-term service level agreements this makes life a whole lot easier for all the clients on the network.

Being that the States will have to build their own portion of the FirstNet network, within their own geographic and local requirements, it will be necessary to maintain continuity within federal multi-state or holistic geographic service needs. It should be noted that federal agencies like DHS, DOD, FBI, etc.., will all require unique necessities to accomplish their daily mission, but organically all these agencies, to include internal state agencies and entities, will all require the same basic elements: coverage, bandwidth and hardening. When collecting the requirements for the potential users within the State, or even the FirstNet national footprint, these 3 basic elements need to be addressed as to meet physical requirements of the broadband network. It doesn’t need to be made into something more complex that it actually is.

A fourth question that has to be answered in the recurring monthly payment (or annual) to the State based service infrastructure, which may cover multiple States, or geographic regions. But meeting such needs is drastically less complex than trying to augment a pay-per-use scenario, which would require a full billing and support solution at the state level, of which will drastically increase design costs for the entire capital solution. But then again it will be up to the private equity investors who will be awarded the State RFP as to whether or not they wish to invest in such infrastructure. With the priority 3 traffic patterns being off-loaded to commercial carriers, it may not be necessary. All private equity would have to account for is long term SLA agreements with fixed priority 1 and priority 2 clients who pay to access the State PSBN (Public Safety Broadband Network) infrastructure of services; insure that the technical specifications for broadband services are met (to include hardening); and insure that inter-state roaming functionality is in place.

These long-term SLA contracts between the State P3 and the federal agencies can be negotiated and maintained by the GSA, just as it does today. Or each federal agency can negotiate and control their own SLA agreements with each of the State’s P3 entities. Given the number of states, territories and the overall geographic landmass; it may be wise to just utilize a centralized approach through the GSA. This will be drastically simpler to accomplish than trying to use a “pay-per-use” model that is typical with the commercial carriers to which would have to be duplicated across a number of physical state and territorial boundaries.

Just some guy and a blog….

I read a recent article published by the Fierce Broadband. What caught my eye was the topic of FirstNet using “operating partners” to help build the National Public Safety Broadband Network.

The term “operating partners” can mean many things…like creating a private “operating company” from within a Public Private Partnership (P3) that is solely created to operate a State’s portion of the National Public Safety Broadband Network. The beauty of this arrangement is that there is no competing interest of this newly created “operating company”. It’s there only to run the Public Safety Broadband Network for the State in conjunction with FirstNet’s overall national network approach. There is no better way to maximize your investment and align your objectives than through just such an arrangement. A commercial operating partner will always have its mind set on selling broadband commercial services — Public Safety Broadband will always be a subset of that business model.  A Public Private Partnership agreement builds a private “operating partner” that focuses only on the needs of Public Safety and nothing else…. unless FirstNet and the State what it to expand its service footprint.

Another keen attribute to such a partnership is the flexibility of the “operating partner” to manage the capital program of the build as well as it’s long-term maintenance and operation. With only the State and Federal agencies and entities, as paying (investing) Priority-1 and 2 clients to this infrastructure, it allows for the creation of long-term service level agreements that can augment infrastructure assets already deployed and invested in. We can maximize those entities needs, requirements and cost-savings through inter-agency coordination and integration of working managed virtual networks as well as asset inventory coordination. In short, the P3 private operating entity can maintain better relationships with all internal and external entities of the State better than any commercial provider will ever be allowed to. That means full implementation of classified and secure cyber security measures through a private managed service entity as well as the full maintenance and deployment capability of the physical broadband network essentially locking-down the network, yet at the same time it is allowed to manage the inter-carrier relationship for Priority-3 rural commercial broadband service between the commercial carriers and rural Americans. This provides for an easy “kill switch” in the case of a cyber-security breach or a network destruction scenario during a catastrophic event.

There is a lot that can be gained from running a private broadband network, but mostly it is the security and the protection factor that is most important, especially during a time of great public safety necessity. What better “operating partner” could you have?

Just some guy and a blog…..

A topic of concern that touches everyone is the delay in building the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network. Without the proper business model any best-laid plans will be wasted. Every carrier broadband network in the world was funded through Private Equity, why should FirstNet be any different? Why do we need Private Equity to fund FirstNet? It’s all about the money and the balance of needs.

Through the oversight of FirstNet, and executed at the State level, we need to project the potential of recurring revenue so that Private Equity will invest. How do we do this? Through a Public Private Partnership targeting Private Equity.

Why can’t commercial carriers be the main partners for FirstNet? Because the real need is in the financing… not the technology or its requirement for interoperability. Everyone knows that interoperability is important, but the carriers aren’t willing to address the responsibility of who will ultimately pay for it. In their mind it’s a government network thus the taxpayers should pay for it.  If the carriers want to take on all the risk and act as the “Private Equity” partner, then by all means step up to the plate and present an offer to pay for the deployment and its long-term management. Otherwise they need to stand-down and let the advancement of the solution proceed for our Nations Security.  I’m confident that the carriers have some very smart business players and thus won’t step up as the primary financial backer because they themselves know that Private Equity funds their own initiatives. Plus we can’t discount that maybe they have an alternative agenda….like trying to acquire and monetize the spectrum rights for their own needs? If I had Billions of installed broadband assets, and relied upon my subscribers for revenue, that is the only reason to let anyone physically close to my bottom-line, otherwise it’s just about protecting my turf and forming barriers to entry.

Motorola, an OEM, is the prime partner for BayWeb and BayRICS are they the private equity partner? They are indeed sitting in a portion of that role, but the context of how to build recurring revenue to pay for the investment is defunct as is its strategy to fund the build and long-term management. First-off their investment isn’t enough to fund the entire capital program as well as the long-term management of the network. The deal relies on the State to fund the majority of the network. Second, the subscriber based business model will not bring in enough money to repay the investment. Thirdly, they will always be classified as a vendor not an integrator (at least not in the same context as an actual integrator — their overheads are too high), but it’s Motorola and the State of California’s money, so as long as FirstNet and federal taxpayers aren’t part of the plan it should stay under the radar. Nothing better than two or three guys putting together just enough money to get a loan on a Ferrari and then trying to pay-off the loan by begging for money outside of a train station.

In the end though, and on its current path, having an OEM lead your private investment for deploying Public Safety Broadband will be plagued with complications. It’s just a matter of time before it will be thrown into court as “anti-competitive”. The same thing happened on the LA-RICS contract, but in this case it was Raytheon (Integrator) who was the target and Motorola (vendor) was the complainer. What if Alcatel or NSN want a fair shake at the Government supported contract? What about Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics or Bechtel? What about Walmart? How will the legislature defend against favoritism? How do you defend against the image of an OEM buying their way into a program? Private Equity teaming of course.

Now don’t get me wrong I have nothing against Motorola. Motorola is a great company that produces some of the best products in the world and is basically the foundation of our Public Safety networks today. Where would we be without them? My only thing is that the business model for BayWeb and BayRICS could be played with a model that all parties get equal and lucrative footholds. The State could get a network totally bought and paid-for without using taxpayer money; Motorola could save the millions they used and revert to a solid margin play of services and products; the users of the network get a solid broadband service; and private investors get a share in the recurring revenue fueling future growth in the State…. its all in how we play the game.

By FirstNet not adopting the Public Private Partnership model that focuses on Private Equity investors — they are in fact delaying the inevitable and thus our Nations Security.  There is a lot more at stake than just First Responders. By incorporating the priority 2 users, i.e. Utilities, Transportation, etc., we are in fact protecting vital infrastructure assets of the Nation as well as its citizens. Not to mention the vital assets of cyber security to control and secure the networks that will ride on this inevitable, and pervasive, broadband network. 

Just some guy and a blog…