Month: January 2014

FirstNet Governor’s Presentation – have you ever had a colonoscopy? Well get ready.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I just reviewed the presentation made by FirstNet to the Governor’s Association by TJ Kennedy and Teri Takai. Outside of the fact that it resembles all the other presentations, Mr Kennedy and Ms Takai did a fine job. The presentation is insightful as to what is needed when constructing the execution format in gathering information and analyzing a State’s assets and users, but what it falls short of is a real business plan that addresses the ultimate question that will be poised by a Governor – who will pay for it and who will fund its long-term operations? Why does this question keep getting avoided?
We can stress all day long about the steps needed to get the network into an execution phase, but what happens if we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on analyzing; researching and discerning assets; taking inventories; justifying users; and accounting for coverage maps, only to find out it was a duplication of effort in that the State probably already has the information needed and if the P3 is what the State wants to pursue it would be done again by the responding Private Equity teams? Do we actually think that a big private equity investment house is going to blindly trust the collection of potential assets and cost structures from the government? You should note that the P3 model actually would be paid for, and executed, during a review of Private Equity investments?
What needs to happen is that FirstNet shouldn’t be spending all this time trying to define an execution strategy without disclosing the business model that the strategy is being performed against. Then again, I believe most of the States have already started reviewing all their assets, and modeling their execution strategies themselves, without the Feds involvement, so I’m hopeful that we can catch this in an early phase as to not waste too much money. By FirstNet coming clean and just laying out the plan will allow the State to make its “Opt Out” decision. If the plan envisioned by FirstNet holds merit, then we shouldn’t have a problem, but maybe that’s why FirstNet is not disclosing its cards?
I have been involved with many wireless deployments over my 25 years in the industry, in those deployments we had to clear thousands of existing tower assets, and fiber infrastructures, as a means to build out coverage maps, only to find out that, consistently, less than 15% of those assets were even good enough to be considered, and, we have to remember these sites didn’t have the stringent hardening characteristics that FirstNet requires. Why do we think that re-using existing assets will be huge cost savings, when in fact it won’t be?  I would put money on the fact that many, if not all, as was the case in LA-RICS, of the existing assets will NOT be usable. So why would FirstNet be spending all this money on an exploratory colonoscopy if it didn’t have a business model yet? The only real asset we will find usable is the land it will sit on. Maybe we should just focus on that instead of all these existing towers? If we do that though, we open up another can of worms when it comes to leasing, zoning and approval process, which by the way, has to be conducted at the local levels — is FirstNet going to conduct all those discussions as well – without the States help? Who is going to pay for that?
As-is always the case in wireless deployments; it will always come down to who will pay for it.  I believe there is a business plan that FirstNet has in mind, and that plan actually calls for the State to fund a majority of its long-term plans, as well as its deployment. By not exposing their plan only delays the inevitable, this would explain why we aren’t hearing anything of a business plan from FirstNet.
I’m sure there are many smart and intelligent people that FirstNet is investing in to help make such a model a success, but are they the right people? Why are we complicating an LTE deployment? For the initial phase, if you get rid of all the clutter (such as radio, handhelds, mobility, etc.), you will see it’s just an LTE deployment with backhaul. Just another reason why the State needs to build its own solution yet follows the standards and the framework of interoperability laid-out by FirstNet. It really is that simple. Why must we get down in the grass and paint the pants on the ants? As I stated in the past, there really is only one way to do this and that is with the State Opting Out and developing its own Public Private Partnership in coordination with FirstNet, but who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet and the States need to decide — the Rivada Spectrum Arbitrage, the Public Private Partnership, and the Motorola solution……which business model is better? You be the judge!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
From what I understand the business models in the running for FirstNet come down to three (3) solutions: Spectrum Arbitrage product, by Rivada Networks; Motorola’s Solution (can’t quite figure that one out); and my Public Private Partnership. I think everyone is giving up on the carrier solution that FirstNet first tried to solicit interest in at the beginning.
The Spectrum Arbitrage solution is an unproven solution in any LTE environment, which makes it pretty bleeding-edge in its implementation. Why do we talk about splitting spectrum usage up when we haven’t even conquered the financial aspects of funding the solution in its entirety? Even though, Rivada boasts about how the business model is intrinsic to the usage patterns of spectrum allocation between carriers and FirstNet, the fact of the matter is we don’t have time to get buy-in on the technical adoption before we set the course for a self-funding business model. How can we get the time though? Well I have an answer for that, but first allow me to cover Motorola’s solution.
I believe the Motorola solution is a combination of Motorola self-funding the deployment of FirstNet using capital invested from their own coffers merged with Federal and State taxpayer money, much like what we saw in BayRICS, nothing wrong with the model except that it intrinsically puts a State at risk of being sued for anti-competitive practices. I don’t think we want to get this tied up in the courts forever. Although, if you can’t win on your proposal then you try to make it so nobody else can win either – this is the name of the game for many vendors. The fact of the matter is that the entire FirstNet solution is much bigger than a 7% stake of vendor financed equipment (more than 80% will go to construction activities). But, I have a solution for this one as well. Allow me to explain.
The Public Private Partnership (P3) model is not based on any technical product offering, whether it be a frequency mixer or a handheld radio, it’s simply based on the balance of business needs and the assurance of meeting requirements. Every entity that will be associated with the National Public Safety Broadband Network will have their own business needs, Police have their own needs, Fire has theirs, and Utilities have theirs. Even players like Rivada and Motorola can get their needs met.
By using the P3 all we are doing is centralizing the cost structure, investment, funding and the technology risk into one organization within the State – a new broadband company. We are then correlating their State needs into the national footprint of FirstNet – who they themselves have needs to be met.
In short, the State gets what it needs; the State’s entities get what they require; FirstNet gets what it demands; the vendors get what they want; the contractors get what they desire; and private equity market get their solid investment. Ultimately though, the State gets new jobs, private investment, economic boost, little risk and a truly hardened, robust and the complete coverage of broadband access for its First Responders.

For the State’s entities, such as Utilities, Transportation or some agency wide organization, they get the truly hardened broadband solution that will enable them to cut capital expenditures and focus more on operational costs (bottom line); maintain broadband connectivity for their business needs from a private solution; shed the technology risk curve by aligning with their own time line of technical needs; access to bandwidth and spectrum they require through a private-protected-network; and, ultimately, realigning their true business objectives back towards the industry they are in (essentially not becoming a telecom carrier themselves).
FirstNet gets to control the standards for technology to insure interoperability; they get to voice the framework for governance; get to build self-sustainment by sharing in the States P3; they get a National Public Safety Broadband Network without touching taxpayer money.  To top it off, FirstNet could use the $7 Billion, allocated by law, in administering it to the national footprint of datacenters, control centers and over all governance of FirstNet nationally.
By referring to vendors I’m talking about those that sell a product, i.e. switch, router, radio, software, etc., even the vendors have a place in the P3. In actuality, the vendors have a better play in the P3 than if they tried to justify the entire business case based on their knowledge and product alone, i.e. Rivada and Motorola. In the P3 all these vendors need to do is help formulate their own Private equity team that will bid on the State’s RFP. The competition will be at the Private Investment level, not the general contractor, integrator or vendor level, essentially this allows the vendors to work for a private equity team and not the government, which means they can expect to be paid on-time and without government red-tape for funding. The avoidance of working for the government to deploy LTE has the means alone for the vendors to fall into line.
For Rivada it is quite simple; a P3 is the framework for the business model and focuses on the needs of everyone involved. By delivering a statewide deployment under the P3 a State, or FirstNet, can trial the Spectrum Arbitrage product for future deployments (giving them time to prove their technology); in the meanwhile the network can be built as it has always been built – a tower at a time. We don’t need to base the deployment, and the business model, off a product offering, after all, this specific technology isn’t deployed anywhere, thus, doesn’t meet federal law requiring commercially available solutions. It doesn’t mean the technology isn’t viable, it just means that we can provide some time to administer it.
The Motorola solution is just a play for Motorola to control the business model itself. If the State goes with the P3 model, which may be unavoidable, then Motorola can act as a general contractor or integrator, but it will never be able to get out of the stereotype of being an equipment manufacturer. My experience tells me that it will be impossible for them to convince the market place that they are just doing this for the services component, it just won’t happen. As long as you carry the overheads of physical product offerings you will always strive towards making that business objective a success, else why are they in business? Their business is to sell gear, not give away services. But, Moto has a place in the P3 as well.
The issue for Motorola, as well as other typical vendors, will be in the competition for the general contractor (GC), as the GC will be the ones who will physically carry the risk of building the network, which is 80%, or more, of the capital costs. Moto would also face stiff competition in the integrator space as well, especially with the overheads they will have to carry. The initial service offerings will be EF&I type services, of which Moto typically outsources anyway. The physical construction and the integration of physical products into the baseline LTE network do not align with Motorola, so why do they insist on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? Seems like they are wasting their time and energy on a business objective they will never be able to control anyway — BayRICS was a perfect example of this.
As for products, the second phase of the FirstNet build-out, which will focus on the Public Safety radios, mobility and applications, this is really where Motorola needs to concentrate. Stop trying to be a construction company, or an LTE provider, and focus on the latter. This is where Motorola can capitalize on its foothold and its relationships with the Public Safety market place; yet simultaneously work for a privatized broadband company for the State instead of the State, or FirstNet, directly, thus being more attractive and better aligned with their overall business objectives.
In the end, there really is only one business model that FirstNet can be built with, that is the Public Private Partnership (P3) at the State level, yet governed in partnership between the State and FirstNet. There will never be enough money in selling spectrum, because such sales only address the capital costs and don’t even mention long-term “self-sustainment” – also part of the law. If the carriers operate at roughly $23 Billion a year, and only cover 40% of the geographic landmass of the United States, why would we think $7 Billion would meet the demand is beyond me? For the next 5 years alone AT&T has scoped out $33 Billion in upgrades and advancements of their existing 40% coverage of the US; FirstNet is struggling to meet $7 Billion, of which it really has only $2 Billion in grants and the rest has to come from the sale of spectrum that others are currently using. Have you ever tried to get a company out of one block of spectrum and into another? All new radios, some cases towers, new infrastructure of controls, etc. Now multiple that by a thousand and you will get my drift.
But, who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…

The Business Plan for FirstNet and the National Public Safety Broadband Network

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I’m going to make this as simple as I can — Here is a solution for FirstNet.
FirstNet can set the standard for the Public Private Partnership, the framework for governance, financial modeling controls and standardization for the States to follow. FirstNet can then establish its own governance model where as it can provide an interoperable service offering, on a subscriber basis, that would be implemented under the national footprint. That subscriber based service offering will ride atop the FirstNet network as the States commence their own build outs.
Using the framework of FirstNet’s procedures, the States can then establish their own P3 model, where as they would be 51% owners of the States deployed network. This ownership model could include proxy ownership of 5% to FirstNet as either a leasing option for the spectrum, or an enhancement to building self-sustainment for the national needs that fall beyond the States control, i.e. inter-state interoperability and governance control. At the same time this model would allow for Private Equity to step in to fund the entire build, and its long-term operations, in return the collect the remaining 49% of the revenue generated from Priority 1, 2 and 3 user services. 
This allows the States to control their build out at the same time provide funding. It will also allow the State, and FirstNet, the ability to avoid taxpayer money while inherently providing economic incentives for jobs creation within the State as well the attraction of private investment to the States offering (after all it is called the Middle Class Tax Relief and “JOBS CREATION” Act).

  • ·       The State gets what it wants and needs for building and sustaining its portion of the network at the same time granting them local control of its needs within the State

  • ·       The Feds get what they want in overall control and assurance to standardization and interoperability, as well as a means to “self-sustain” the overall network

  • ·       Private equity gets its long-term objectives of investment scenarios. 


There are a whole lot of other incentives to this model, but it will defeat the effort of trying to keep this entry short. I am available to discuss if you so desire.

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet…hellooo…anybody there? Anybody seen FirstNet around? I know they are here somewhere! Anybody seen our keys to the kingdom?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
By now the States are wondering what the heck is going on with FirstNet. We are getting no real Intel on what their plan is; yet we understand that a State can execute a Public Private Partnership that is capable of fostering economic development and job growth specifically for the State’s needs. Why is it taking so long for FirstNet to just tell the Public Safety Community and the market place what the plan is? The more silence that permeates from FirstNet, the stronger the sentiment grows against the viability of a federal solution to deliver what is needed. This is not a game of who has the better plan, although the P3 is better ;), its about getting the build started. Let the States utilize the SLIGP grant money to start developing their own plans, if they so desire, frankly I think the amount of money needed to develop that plan is microscopic to what has to happen, so why wait for a mini-carrot from the Feds? It’s like going 5 miles down the road to another gas station just because its 3 cents cheaper.
Mark my word, outside of the State based P3 model, which could actually be the adopted framework of FirstNet, the only other plan for FirstNet has to consider would be a taxpayer funded model in partnership with the commercial carriers and program managed by a large defense contractor. Unfortunately such a model will ride the backs of both the State and the Federal tax base. To further complicate the solution FirstNet may seek private investment to help support their carrier solution nationwide, which would eventually confirm my intuition that their plan is for an AT&T, or Verizon, collaboration model. That would be like Verizon asking AT&T to help build their network and operations plan…. that will never happen. Why don’t we just give them the keys to the kingdom while we’re at it? The model still falls way short in addressing the primary issue of rural coverage. Someone has to pay for the rural build out, but who? My bet is that the State’s will be left holding the bag. As I have stated in earlier entries to my blog, if the national carrier partnership model is bought off by a State, it will be evident after a few years that the money to sustain the network, and its future upgrades, will be left up to the State taxpayer to fund it.
The fact of the matter is, with all that hard work put in by the Public Safety community, to fight for their own spectrum, that work would be dwindled into a model that closely resembles a commercial carrier footprint. Further down the road the carriers will find themselves well positioned to take over the network, due to mismanagement and ill-fated services rendered by the government, eventually leaving them in control of the spectrum and ultimately squeezing out the prioritization of Public Safety to accommodate for their shareholders profits. If you lay with snakes, you’re bound to be bit, it’s their nature.
Let me ask this — if the carriers are moving away from actually owning their own infrastructure and off-loading it to third parties, i.e. AT&T Towers to Crown Castle or Sprints total outsourcing of all their RAN operations to Ericsson (2010), what do we think will happen if, and when, FirstNet solidifies its partnership with the commercial carriers? Will they want to stick around? Would they just try to control the spectrum allocated and thus the keys to the kingdom?
If the ill-fated objective is the cost per user (like around $30 per handset) for our First Responders, then how do you compete with free? Any taxpayer-funded solution will not be free. Even if, and I’m reaching here, FirstNet decides to acquire T-Mobile for it’s quick build out, or form a P3 with two major carriers, it will still fall way short of touching the rural areas, and will, in fact, waste even more taxpayer money with an acquisition, or merger, and still be faced with the construction of the rural portions of the network anyway – actually the taxpayers would still be faced with that expense. Why not just shoot us now instead of going through the trial? There is a reason we still lack commercial broadband coverage to more than 60% of the geographic landmass of the United States — it has to do with return on investment and the protection of revenue streams. By allowing the States to conduct their own Public Private Partnership with Private Equity, still leaves FirstNet in control, and it still delivers a one-network solution nationwide. It really isn’t rocket science to see that everyone wins in the P3 model. But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet and their view of State Opt-Outs — It seems that the fear is real, but is it necessary? Perpetuity can go both ways.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I just read a very interesting article that may hint to a hidden fear when it comes to “Opt-out” or “Opt-in” scenarios. “If FirstNet does its job, ‘opt out’ is not a practical choice for states”,  Jan. 16, 2014 by Donny Jacksonin Urgent Matters. Makes for a very interesting read, but I would like to address the 3 main bullet items in the article.
In the article it’s evident that FirstNet is concerned with State Opt-Outs, but that fear is unfounded. In actuality FirstNet, and the Federal Government, has more to gain by the States deciding too Opt-out. In short, it allows FirstNet to maintain governance control nationwide at the same time allowing the States to capitalize on needed revenue to help sustain their own Public Safety programs. But, then again Social Security is only suppose to be spent of the welfare of the citizens and we all know it bleeds money into other Federal programs – which by the way is controlled by the feds. To further that point, it also allows FirstNet to partake in the “ownership” model of each and every state as well. Imagine FirstNet coming in with a 5% ownership stake of a State’s given Public Private Partnership. Now imagine that 5% multiplied by 56 (States and territories). Such a scenario would generate more cash for FirstNet than asking taxpayers to fund it. Can anybody look up the revenue last year from AT&T and tell me what 5% would be — annually?
As it states in the legislation, a State, or FirstNet, cannot sell direct commercial access to broadband (make note of the term “Third Party” though), nor can they utilize the revenue for general funds. In fact what it states is that any revenue made off the network has to be reinvested back into the network to help with “self-sustainment” and furthering the purposes of Public Safety.  To illustrate I have inserted (below) “The First ResponderNetwork and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues forCongress”. By Linda K. Moore, Specialist in Telecommunications Policy, January 8, 2014, section entitled:
FirstNet: Fee Income and Other Revenue
FirstNet has the authority to obtain grants and to receive payment for the use of network capacity licensed to FirstNet and of network infrastructure “constructed, owned, or operated” by FirstNet.25 Specifically, FirstNet is authorized to collect network user fees from public safety and secondary users26 and to receive payments under leasing agreements in public-private partnerships.27 These partnerships may be formed between FirstNet and a secondary user for the purpose of constructing, managing, and operating the network. The agreements may allow access to the network on a secondary basis for services other than public safety. FirstNet and its partners may also receive payments for leasing access to infrastructure, such as towers.28 The act requires that these fees be sufficient each year to cover annual expenses of FirstNet to carry out required activities,29 with any remaining revenue going to network construction, operation, maintenance, and improvement.30 There is a prohibition on providing service directly to consumers; this does not impact the right to collect fees from a secondary user or enter into leasing agreements.31
Other Sources of Funds
The construction of this new network represents a significant investment for all participants. State public safety agencies have multiple obligations to build, upgrade, and equip other networks and may not be in a position to contribute to building and maintaining the new broadband network. The ability of FirstNet to procure funding from the private sector may be crucial to its success.
25 P.L. 112-96, Section 6206 (b) (4).
26 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (a) (1).
27 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (a) (2).
28 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (a) (3).
29 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (b).
30 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (d).
31 P.L. 112-96, Section 6212.
With that said, allow me to specifically address each of the points made in Mr. Jackson’s report.
      1.     States and territories that choose to “opt out” are not opting out of FirstNet entirely. There will be a first-responder broadband network in that state regardless that must meet FirstNet’s requirements—the difference is that the “opt out” state would have build and operate the network, instead of letting FirstNet do it.
This is true, thus my earlier blog postings about the term not really being a term at all. In actuality the legislation doesn’t say anything about “Opt Out”, that was a term made up after the law hit the books. The term “Opt Out”, per FirstNet, really means to not buy the service offering from FirstNet, who they themselves want to build the network to capitalize on the broadband network, as well as control the overarching footprint and carrier relations in the future. In short, FirstNet would be positioned, if all the States “Opt In”, to formulate later plans with the commercial carriers to which the States would have no say in.  Now I’m not saying this was the plan from the beginning, but this would definitely be the result if the State’s don’t have a say in the control of their own footprint, then again, the States could not say anything at all to which FirstNet would not be a success and would rather be more of a burden on the taxpayers in that they would construct a network that nobody uses. If nobody uses it then 5-10 years down the road we will be having talks about how the States will take ownership of their footprints anyway, the result, it will be on the heads of the taxpayers. The only way to avoid this if by using the Public Private Partnership model I have been preaching about. 
      2.     States and territories that choose to “opt out” cannot use partnership deals to bolster their general funds. Any money received, as part of a public-private agreement, must be reinvested into the network, not offset shortfalls elsewhere in the budget.
This too is true. As per the inserted text above you can see that the revenue generated from the sale of services, or access, to the broadband network can, in fact, be sold and then “reinvested” back into the States Public Safety needs — as well as FirstNet. It does specifically state, in the Legislation, that direct service can be sold by a “third party” though, thus the private investment scenario recouping for it’s investment to pay for the State’s entire broadband network, which is a FirstNet gain as well. Essentially, all boats rise with the tide.
      3.     A state or territory that chooses to “opt out” can present a plan to the FCCthat would make it eligible to receive some funding for the build-out of the network. However, the state/territory then would be on its own to pay for the operations of that network in perpetuity.
I’m weary about this statement as it can be construed as intimidation. The build of the network will have to happen at the State level anyway, that’s where all the local resources are. Plus, even if a State opted in, who would be the one’s approving the leasing arrangements? The State! If you are going to build it locally, with local resources, and you have to get approval for any lease arrangements from the State anyway, then why is it we say that the State’s aren’t doing anything? If the State is involved then that means some kind of allocation of taxpayer money has to be spent, thus the State legislature has to get approval. What about those State Constitutions that won’t allow the Feds to come in and perform commerce such as this? The fact of the matter, anyone who has built these networks knows you can’t do it without the State, or the State’s direct oversight. This is not a virtual service offering, such as a Health Exchange, it’s physical and real telecommunications network that has to be monitored, maintained and funded long term. If we think that a single federal entity will be able to come into a State (multiplied by 56) and physically build a network without the State; or if a federal entity thinks it will be able to come in and lease broadband services to certain State entities, and not others, then I’m afraid it will be a long time before we actually see anything get done.
As for the “perpetuity” of the owning and operating the network; who owns, operates and maintains the State networks today? Not the feds. What makes us think this will be any different? Through the Public Private Partnership the State isn’t responsible for the funding the network … private investment is. The State isn’t responsible for the risk in the technology curve…. private investment is. The State isn’t responsible for operating, or maintaining, the network… private investment is. The State’s taxpayers aren’t responsible for funding the entire deployment… private investment is.

To conclude, the path is clear to me, there is no other way to build this nationwide platform for Public Safety, other than the Public Private Partnership model I have been talking about. I didn’t just make this stuff up overnight, this has been more than 10-years of my life researching and analyzing this specific topic culminating into my dissertation and ultimately my doctoral degree, which, I believe, actually makes me the foremost expert… scary isn’t it? I was a professional student to say the least. Using the guidance and standardization provided by FirstNet; having a framework laid-out by FirstNet that illustrates the Public Private Partnership in its entirety; and having the State take control of what it already knows it will have to build anyway, is better for FirstNet, the State and the taxpayers.  What better way for FirstNet to maintain control of its national footprint, yet at the same time allowing the States, and the Federal, tax burden to be lifted. In the end we have to do what’s right for the country, not what could be interpreted as an ideological vision. If we don’t, then we will further our decline by “perpetuating” lost expenditures and controls for our fiscal responsibilities.
Then again who am I, other than….
Just some guy and a blog…. 

FirstNet Handsets, Public Safety and my wife’s access to my bank account

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
My wife lost her iPhone the other day, so I had to set her up with an old Pantech we had from a few years ago, we’re not talking 10 years, just about 2-3 years. This Pantech, in its day, was one of the sought after phones in that it had a fold out keyboard and had the ability to roam the Internet on a whopping 3G connection. Remember the old way of texting, when you actually had to transverse the cumbersome little keyboard with it’s little tiny buttons? You would have thought I’d just asked my wife to live in the 14thcentury or something. It wasn’t “real texting” as she put it, and “I don’t have my apps anymore, how do you expect me to function without my apps? I have things I have to get done!” It was like disconnecting her from everyone and forcing her to use this thing called a phone – which by the way was our primary source of communication only 5-6 years ago. She stored everything on that phone. She never needed to remember anyone’s phone number, all she did was look up his or her name and hit redial on a previous call. This got me to thinking; so what kind of impact will handsets have on FirstNet?
There are a few things we need to understand about the handset market before we consider its impact on the Public Safety Broadband Network. The handset market of yesterday, and today, is all about smart phones. They have many features and apps galore. We have apps that let us see how many apps you can actually buy in order to develop more apps. Yes, you will be assimilated. The point is that the handset market today is all about the applications and the accessiblility of information. Although for Public Safety, the mindset we have today is that it’s all about access to information and the idea that the handset has to be secure. But is that true?
If we can adapt a high-level encryption algorithm over a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) tunneling protocol that spans the open Internet so that my wife can access, through her smart phone, into my bank account, then why do I need to encrypt the handset? My wife’s handset isn’t encrypted. The smart phones are getting better everyday, but it’s not necessarily the handset that is expanding, it’s more the apps and the infrastructure that supports them. The smart phones are just adapting to the amount of data that can be delivered.
The infrastructure of LTE, which FirstNet will deploy as well, is the piping infrastructure to make the magic happen. The personal touch and flavor of how you connect is in the handset, but it’s the apps that truly deliver what we need. This is what the wireline fiber optic explosion was missing back in the early 2000’s. Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon of application developers, along with the neat and cool internet companies, all boasting of such ingenuity and hipness that formed the bubble of the telecom space; the only thing is that the infrastructure, or the piping, wasn’t there to connect all the users with those applications being developed. This is why LTE is so significant. Nothing compares to wireless now, even the big carriers have ceased deploying fiber to the home due to the fact that LTE can deliver the same, or better, last mile experience.  In essence, LTE now eliminates the bottle neck at the handset level with large data connections, enough data to allow my wife to securely interface with my bank account so she can buy a new purse… that’s not fair…buy more food for our five kids.
As anyone can find out for him, or herself, all the handset manufacturers are creating more and more technology at a cheaper price. Two years ago you would have paid $150 for a 3G dongle for your laptop, today you can pay $10 for a LTE dongle. What does that mean for FirstNet? First off, it means that the subscriber model won’t work for FirstNet… not alone anyway. Secondly, if the handset isn’t where all the encryption is being handled, then why do we have to hear so much about the hardened and secure handsets costing thousands? I can understand the ruggedness, but securing the handset with expensive chipsets and algorithms? What does that provide us except a higher cost? My vision of where this is going is essentially cheap throw-away-phones (or TAPs, I’m trademarking that title) for Public Safety that is ruggedized. Leave the encryption and safety features of the applications in the connection, not in the handset itself.  Why take a $10 dongle and make it into a $1000 dongle just for the sake of feeling that your handset will not be stolen, especially when within a month, or two, I will be able to get the same dongle for free? If the carriers insist on consolidating and converging into the “services cloud” rather than the connection space, why wouldn’t they give away a $10 dongle? If you buy my “new services” at $50 a month and you buy 3 different services from me through my apps, then I will provide you a free dongle.
We must realize that this is a good thing for FirstNet, but FirstNet (the organization) needs to realize that handsets, and month-to-month subscriber based modeling, is not the way to go on this one. Plus, if the carriers are moving away from owning their own assets of infrastructure because of shrinking ARPUs (Average Rate Per User), then shouldn’t we use it as a lesson learned? In the Public Private Partnership model I am promoting, the option is there for the State to provide it’s First Responders with free handsets, making it pretty hard for a subscriber based model to compete.
In the end where’d my wife’s phone go? Oh, it’s with…

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet and Public Safety Broadband Network — the upcoming political battlefiled of elections 2014 and 2016

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

First, Happy New Year and I hope everyone had as much  of a Merry Christmas as I had. With 6 kids you can imagine life gets pretty exciting around our house this time of the year. Never thought I would have so much wrapping paper to pickup or corralling of kids who are all high on sugar, but, as always, it’s a blast this time of the year. Plus, now that the hangover is long gone I am ready for the New Year.

For the past three years I’ve been publishing articles on my blog supporting the best, and probably only, business model that will work to deploy our Nations Public Safety Broadband Network, my plans haven’t changed, I will continue with the effort. After all, somebody has to be listening, I seem to have a lot of readers and I don’t think it’s because of my photos in Playgirl. Wishful thinking, I know.

Towards the end of 2013 (in December no doubt and with consternation from my wife) I had plenty of phone calls to discuss the model, as well as what the next steps may be for FirstNet — my interpretation anyway. I have a feeling we have many things that will start to happen, but most predominately I think we will start to see states “opting out” of the FirstNet model. This means good things for contractors who build the networks and the LTE vendors that want to deploy their kit, in the end it’s a $50-$100 Billion market, who wouldn’t be excited?

With the oncoming political battlefield being laid out for the upcoming 2014 elections, as well as the national elections in 2016, I think we have more than a few states wanting to make a move in establishing their Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN). A strong stance on the support of Public Safety will, or should, be a resounding message to the constituents this year. What better message to your state representatives than a self-funded, no taxpayer responsibility, of a network buildout that actually creates jobs, brings in much needed revenue, and maintains local control and focus on First Responders? Why wait for something you know you will get all screwed up if the federal government tries to built it from the top down, especially when you have to construct it yourself anyway? Maybe you can have them build your website? 😉

But, for those that want to “opt-in” we must look a little deeper. What political battles will be fought in the very near future? Should we consider the long-term outcome when it doesn’t go as planned? What happens if you proceed with the “one-size-fits-all” federal agency to design, build, deploy and maintain the national PSBN and then we have a complete reversal of the political landscape? What funding do you think will be cut first? Who do you think will be left holding the bag — the State? Do we wait until after the elections? Do we let this new federal agency proceed with its plan by getting itself entrenched to a point of no-return? When do we realize that by using the “one-size-fits-all” model it will have to be funded by the taxpayers? When do we realize that the burden of that tax base would be on the states? As I stated earlier, if that is the case, then why wait?

If you are a state governor, and you know you will have to face the taxpayers to help fund your statewide buildout, how long before your supporters start to ask “what’s in it for us?” Why are we waiting for the Federal Government to come in a do a job we should be doing ourselves? How does the federal solution create jobs for us locally? How does the federal solution bring revenue into our state to help bolster our own economy and relieve of us of internal servitude and indebtedness?

It’s obvious what will come of it if you go the way of the Public Private Partnership (P3) model; you get to advance your cause with the constituents of the state at the same time avoiding higher taxation; you get a long-standing source of revenue; you get a fully managed network without the risk of the technology curve; you get the entire thing at no cost to the State or its taxpayers. Why wait?

What is unclear is how the solution will get built any better with a new federal agency? In fact it can’t be built any better than a P3; construction is construction no matter how you look at it; assets are assets and are predominately locally owned: taxpayers are taxpayers and live in states no matter how you view them; jobs are jobs and are best adopted locally, not through some federal organization located in the beltway of DC; and, revenue is best controlled and spent by the State for its own needs simply because it knows what is best for its base of support. What the federal “all-encompassing” model lacks is the will of Private Equity that can only be introduced via a P3 model. We need to attract private equity in order for them to invest and that is best done locally at the state level.

In the end both solutions build almost the same network, but only one is fully funded, creates its own revenue, generates local jobs and keeps local control; the other uses taxpayer money to fund it, with no revenue, and only benefits another big Orwellian federal agency.

But who am I?

Just some guy and a blog…….