What I don’t understand is why hasn’t the FirstNet Board realized that it can have the best of both worlds — it can offer a carrier type solution at the same time work with the States as they commission their Public Private Partnership to build their own solution. At the end of the day FirstNet needs to provide a model that is better aligned with the State’s own plans and needs. By just offering one solution only puts them in a bad spot of forcing an “opt out” decision by the State. The State has to do what is in the best interest of the State, and the State’s constituents, when it comes to Public Safety. The best way forward is hidden in the Federal Legislation’s own name — The Middle Class Tax Relief and the Jobs Creation Act of 2012. Anybody see the resemblance of a hidden message there?

The best way for a State to maximize its tax deferment and create jobs is buy monetizing its own spectrum for the benefit of its Public Safety needs, which in turn automatically creates local jobs and invites private investment to avoid taxation. With FirstNet just offering a carrier type service they are not fulfilling the role of what the State really needs. But FirstNet can do both. Its like being a transvestite….you can eat, drink and be Mary!

FirstNet can help define a State’s requirements and framework of executing a State’s Public Private Partnership (P3) and for its service it can retain a small percentage of the State’s ownership model. This will allow FirstNet to create a self-sustaining model without using taxpayer money. At the same time it can work in coordination with the carriers to model a “service model” for Public Safety access nationally — such a service will act as a filler in that Public Safety’s demands should not dictate a carriers business model and the carrier should not be held responsible for the service if a major event happens. But at least there will be some type of service while we fill in the blanks with truly hardened networks.

Although a State’s P3 model can survive without a subscriber based model being implemented; it would benefit the State to create a subscriber based capability anyway. Who knows what the future will bring when it comes to service provisioning needs and extra revenue opportunities. In the end such a capability could co-exist with FirstNet’s plan for a commercial supported service as well — actually sounds like a great way to build your inter-carrier relationships and agreements. In the end though the State needs to build its own solution to garner the benefits the P3 exudes.

But then again I’m…

Just some guy and a blog….

If you are FirstNet, a State, or a procurement official you are probably well aware that LTE has a limited amount of potential vendors. In the North American market we have Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, NSN (soon to be Nokia), Huawei and IP Wireless with GD. Let me break it down to the real players. First, Huawei is out, probably due to some type of overreaching threat of spy activity that would tap into all our phone lines and data calls to track what we are doing….or am I talking about the NSA? Doesn’t matter they are out.   If we look at the remaining players three of them have real carrier deployments of LTE and make up the bulk of the worlds LTE deployments. IP Wireless does not have that footprint. It doesn’t mean somebody won’t roll out IP Wireless and given the four stages of a relationship I wish that willing party the best in their exploratory phase of such a young relationship. Thats always the best part of the relationship — lots of touching, feelings, and kissing….off topic sorry. We do have other makers of LTE, such as Fujitsu, but they seem to have an issue with leaving their own mainland.

Out of the main providers on the table — ALU, Ericsson and NSN — we have to look at the design of the solutions and whats best for this particular case. At the base of that comparison is the terms FDD and TDD. I’m not going to get technical on you here but you need to understand the TDD stands for “Time Division Duplex” and FDD stands for “Frequency Division Duplex”. If you insist on having the technical details then just google it. The main thing you need to know is that the traditional telephone networks, since the Bell days, were built on “Time Division Multiplexing” and is better known as “voice” or “telco” networks”. The entire cloud of the Internet was based on “Frequency Division Multiplexing” or better referred to as data or packet networks.

The introduction of wireless started on the TDM side of the house in direct support of Voice. Around the same time certain ventures starting exploring the use of such things as Wifi which ultimately created something called OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing). Got to love the complex terms. Makes me feel smart. Anyway OFDM became the basis for WiMax and LTE, but in this case the carrier market chose LTE over WiMax due specifically to the reason that LTE is better suited to accommodate the vast amounts of TDM infrastructure the carriers own and have owned since their creation. As it stands today 99% of the entire worlds carrier market has chosen LTE. It doesn’t matter if you think WiMax may be better…..Betamax was better than VHS.

Then came along the terms FDD versus TDD in the current realm of available LTE vendors. In layman’s terms what is the easiest way to explain which of the platforms is best suited for FirstNet? Well FirstNet doesn’t have the burden of an installed base of old TDM architectures that were designed to support voice and voice only, so why install TDD. The better choice is FDD!

The FDD solution was designed and made for the next step in the wireless networking world, which was the leap beyond small 32-bit voice packet architectures and onto the much bigger 64–1600 bit data packet architectures. The bigger packet sizes accommodate for more efficiency in data packet transmissions. Being that there is so many packets its better to take the large bus to school as opposed to the short small bus. As I have always said size does matter. Being that the majority of all the traffic on the FirstNet architecture will be data, then why would we consider deploying an architecture to support voice when voice isn’t our main reason for the network? Unless of course your business plan calls for a full-out connection and relationship with the national carriers to provide you your services — I’m referring to the FirstNet model. What better than to tie the entire Public Safety data requirements to an already established voice architecture that isn’t optimized for our needs!  Now it may be me just stepping out of the box here, but wouldn’t it be inventive to deploy a data network for our data needs?

The best way to explain FD-LTE and TD-LTE is that FD-LTE is a router based network and the TD-LTE is a switch based network. Routers were made for larger data packets and switches were designed for smaller voice packets. The only time this really will really have an impact is if you are really pushing the bandwidth limits of your network; enough to where you have to start looking at efficiencies of use. Traditional TDM architectures carry a 30% overhead on every packet — that’s like taking a trip with a fully packed roll-aboard suitcase, plus an full packed computer bag, then adding another fully packed computer bag.  It just becomes another financially impacted and non-efficient way of carrying your crap. It’s easier just to take two roll-aboard suitcases.

Being that the first iteration of the LTE deployments will have bandwidth 300 times that of the current data requirements of Public Safety gives us a little breathing room. But in the end their is only one real LTE vendor that properly aligns with the LTE based data packet architecture — NSN….who would have thought! So if you aren’t considering NSN for your solution then you may have been duped down a path that best supports the commercial carrier market than your own private data needs. Hopefully this explains why Voice Over LTE doesn’t exist today (as you would expect) — it’s because the carriers don’t need it. They make all their main revenue from their traditional business of assets which are all based on TDM telco voice services and designed for that means…why change to this thing called data? Seems so archaic. (sarcasm)

Just some guy and a blog…..

How does FirstNet create jobs and reduce the tax burden on the middle class with a carrier based commercial model of a partnership? Isn’t the essential underlying meaning of the “Middle Class Tax Relief and the Jobs Creation Act of 2012” to actually reduce taxes and put people back to work? Or is it to reduce our tax balances by giving it to the commercial carriers who in turn can employ their own people? I’m just saying.

Its a trick question. In actuality FirstNet has positioned themselves to give the $7 Billion in taxpayer money to help harden the carrier class networks so that they can install their own antennas then interface with the commercial carriers to deliver their own “service” functionality to the First Responders and Public Safety users. At the same time they will leave the purchase of handsets to the State’s public safety community as well as its taxpayers for the long-term maintenance. What’s different in that model than just giving the money to the corporate carrier industry to build it and run it for them? Don’t the Public Safety entities within a State already have commercial service contacts anyway? Why do they need just another commercial based subscriber fee to access a private LTE network? Who will be held responsible for this solutions long-term plan — the State? The taxpayer! What happens when another large incident happens and the users who declined the service aren’t on the network?

So I ask, what is more advantageous to the “Middle Class Tax Relief and the Jobs Creation Act of 2012” the “Opt In” for the FirstNet service model? Or the “Opt Out” which allows the State to build its own business model that will employ thousands, bring in needed investments, and enhance their own economic outcome? A Public Private Partnership between the State and Private Investment does exactly what the “Act” was originally designed to do — that is to have NO tax burden; puts State constituents to work; brings in needed investment & revenue; and pays for all the First Responder communication handset needs. At the same time it brings all the Public Safety Services Organizations under one communications umbrella that centralizes the risk of the technology roadmap for the broadband solution. But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

A major program that has been on-going in the United States is called Positive Train Control or PTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control). Its intended purpose is to control trains. Following the disaster in California it has become a number one priority for the US. But how could FirstNet be considered a life saving tool when it comes to PTC? The answer is quite simple — spectrum and broadband.

Since the Jobs Creation Act of 2012 was signed by President Obama it has been the intention of FirstNet to create the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network or PSBN. The network is talked about as a tool for First Responders to communicate when in fact it is much more than that. FirstNet is an entire ecosystem of public safety that is facilitated with the use of a private broadband LTE solution. Through state born public private partnerships a State can incorporate the use of all Public Safety Service Organizations (as depicted in the legislation). The transportation vertical is included in that ecosystem of public safety organizations — such was the case with the train wrecks in Glendale, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Glendale_train_crash) in 2005 and Chatsworth of Los Angeles in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision).

As part of that ecosystem of public safety, and had the use of private broadband solution been introduced prior to those accidents, the PTC solution could have, not only have possibly stopped the wreck from happening in the first place, but they could have easily developed an adapted application that would have notified the Police, or Fire, as to the possibility of a head on collision or derailment. Such being the case in Canada. The derailment in Canada could have utilized a broadband initiated automated alert procedure to the local police and fire officials to respond to an unmanned train and possibility of derailment before any human was aware of what was going on. What FirstNet has the capability of doing, if implemented properly, is not only the technical capability of integrating cross platforms data scenarios, but also cross agency policies and procedures that would have enabled that. But we can’t address cross agency relationships if we don’t incorporate all the players into the ecosystem that FirstNet creates.

Getting back to the first part of my easy solution — spectrum. One of the biggest issues with PTC is its technology roadmap and its coverage requirements. In the past PTC was dependent on satellite tracking, 3G services and RF based solutions all trying to work together. Now comes FirstNet with a “100% geographic landmass coverage map”. The transportation industry in whole lacks its own spectrum — which is the case for many verticals, i.e. our electric grid. For rail it includes class 1 carriers such as BNSF or Union Pacific; mass transit systems such as subways or light rail systems; as well as planned high speed rail. Especially high speed rail.

High speed rail requires automated computer operations for any train going above 150 mph with human assistance. In Europe they employ GSM-R as the standard for this radio controlling interface. But we don’t use GSM in the US, so they fashioned LTE-R as the spec. But the big problem is the spectrum. PTC has the same issue…spectrum. Now that the transportation industry is considered part of the “Public Safety Services” maybe they now have a chance of getting access to that spectrum, but not the spectrum itself, rather a functionality of the LTE technology — in short prioritization and the use of broadband.

The second part of my easy solution: Broadband will allow enough capacity for all the Public Safety Service responsible organizations the ability to dedicate prioritized services and automated responses across the ecosystem of relationships that FirstNet (the network) should enable. Every organization that will interface and use the private broadband solution has the duty to be a part of this ecosystem and the use of its applications must be open to integrate and incorporate both the technical and the policy based relationships. How we understand those policy based relationships has to be generated within the State itself. Where else will you get the physical relationship characteristics other than the local state organizations with their hands on the action? Broadband is just the plumbing that enables organizational policy and inter-agency relationships. You can’t just give spectrum and then create silos of non-interactive agencies.

FirstNet is the enabler of this inter-agency relationship. We have to think way outside of the box and move way beyond what is just sitting in front of us. We can’t just design a network; implement its services just for First Responders; and keep a blind eye to the technologies capabilities just because one organizational mindset is that Public Safety just means Police, Fire and EMS. By not being totally inclusive of all “Public Safety Service Organizations”, and not implementing the cross platform functionality of prioritization the technology presents, could hold FirstNet negligent in the prevention of further disasters, such as the case in Canada and what has happened all across the US in the past. How does one justify not being responsive to an accident when a broadband solution, that could have involved all cooperating agencies, was implemented under the context of a commercial carrier solution and only incorporated for a select few? Doesn’t that undermine all of what public safety is supposed to do?

Just some guy and a blog….

Just read an interesting article by Donny Jackson on the Urgent website entitled, “FirstNet preparing for individual state meetings” dated July 10, 2013.

What struck me as interesting is the last two paragraphs:

“Part of what they want to know, we don’t know yet,” Johnson said. “Which is, ‘So what does the network look like?’

“I don’t think I can say this enough: We have to listen to the states, harvest the information from the states and pour that into the network design. That will yield a network choice; that network choice will yield a price; and then people can start doing business planning around that. But we have to listen first, and that’s the phase we’re in right now.”

I think we got this backwards. Data collection is good but we can’t design without a true business model. Reading into the statement I can’t help to notice that Chief Johnson, who is definitely a great resource for FirstNet, is referring to the process as if FirstNet already has a business model in place. For example: if you are listening to people then refer to “the network design” would indicate that you already know what you want. But, in fact a proper business model will actually dictate all the high-level necessities of a design, which he highlights. But then he goes on to state we will listen, design then build a business plan. As it stands even the legislation already dictates an LTE network, so what more do we need? We just need to put together a good business model that exploits that technology. This is not new. Business models already exist on how to exploit the advantages of LTE. The best way is to monetize its use. Differing from the carrier model, which is to exploit the handset and subscriber market, we just need to know how FirstNet sees it business model moving forward. If FirstNet believes the carrier subscriber model is the model they like, then compare it to all the other models and move on. The fact of the matter is that for a private network of this size, and with the priority schemes and customer base, the carrier subscriber is not the best model. The best model is a Public Private Partnership model executed at the State level in coordination with the national needs of FirstNet.

With a proper business model, and the talks with the States, FirstNet will, and only then, be able to consider the best overall design(s) limiting each state to its own specific detailed design. What if through a states solicitation and procurement process indicates that multiple OEM solutions are called for as to illustrate a states compliance with fairness laws? What if a state already has an OEM solution installed that can’t work with any of the other respondents? If we concentrate on the design before we define how the business model will be implemented and conducted between FirstNet the States, and the States potential partners, then this in fact just a federal solution (design) being forced onto a State.

What we need to address is the possibilities of the State monetizing its own slice of the spectrum as to help facilitate its long-term goals of self-sustainment as well as developing its Public Safety needs above and beyond just the network. In short, we need to find out how a State (and FirstNet inherently) will exploit the technology of LTE, and its spectrum allocation, for its own good. There is nothing wrong with a State monetizing the spectrum for its own needs! In actuality its a national necessity given the state of our economy and employment outlooks. The State, and FirstNet, must do everything it can to help the nation get out of its current funk. By just designing out a service network that a federal agency can deploy over the States is not helping the nation overall. Frankly its a waste of resources and money and in actually undermines our true needs and those needs specified in the “JOBS CREATION ACT”! Is it just me or have we lost site of what the whole goal is with the bill signed by the President? It’s way more than just “Public Safety”. We were given a cruise ship the size of an aircraft carrier yet we focus on the row boat in the back yard.

In the end what I would like to see from FirstNet is a business model that illustrates the product offering (not a design); how that product offering will produce revenue; how that revenue will be shared and distributed; how the parties will co-mingle; how that revenue will sustain the overall model; and how the model illustrates the best course for a proper design. I don’t need to see a detailed design and then try to create a business model. Thats like designing an entire car and then trying to go back to see what the market actually needs or wants. It may be just me, but that seems like a waste of time and money…. then again it is the US car industry I used as an analogy.

Just some guy and a blog….