Month: May 2014

FirstNet — Sam Ginn jumping ship, following suit to Bill D’Agastino, two men overboard. As my wife always tells me; "Let a women take over so we can get things done."

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Hats off to Sam Ginn who is stepping down from the FirstNet Board. It’s never easy to lead the inaugural board on such a grand endeavor. The path was never going to be easy given the balancing act that was required between so many players and the eagerness to get something done so fast.
As I spoke about in an earlier article: “FirstNet – Bill D’Agastino jumping ship? Carrier perception kills their plans?” —the course I predict is that FirstNet is making strides in the right direction by formulating a non-biased approach that will represent all the entities involved. The carriers still have a performance at the table — if FirstNet plays its cards right. The carriers will be better positioned, not just to support FirstNet, but for themselves as well. The balancing of act of user requirements, asset availability, and projected recurring revenue, can now be established to attract private industry into the fray. Plus, the defining role of the State Governor’s will benefit tremendously with the added advantage of monetizing the spectrum for their benefit in support of Public Safety and FirstNet. 
We must resist the brilliance of the technology; or our innate ability to build in a moments notice; we must focus on a solid business case that will balance the needs of all involved, without it, we are just wasting money on fancy technologies and large projects with no real long-term goals. We can’t build a network just for the sake of saying “we are building a network”; such actions don’t help Public Safety at all, in fact it’s detrimental to the cause. The solution for FirstNet cannot be a carrier solution, or a spectrum solution, nor can it be just broadband solution, the solution needs to be a balancing act of the needs and requirements of those that have the money to pay for services; those that have the cash to fund it; and those that need the service to subsist. The technology is the fun part; the hard part is figuring out the balancing act, a task I married myself to some twelve years ago. 
In the end, as I hinted to in an earlier article entitled; “A Silent Coup is Afoot” it’s clear that the Department of Commerce is indeed silently removing the carrier perception. That perception of the carriers influencing FirstNet must be quelled, the success of FirstNet, and its ability to converse with the States, will depend on it. As I have alluded to in the past, the best way forward is with the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership, and that model needs to be adopted, not only by the State, but by FirstNet as well.
But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — NPSTC Public Safety Grade Report for the Public Safety standpoint.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Just read an interesting article entitled, “NPSTC releases document describing ‘public-safety-grade’ requirements for FirstNet” by Donny Jackson | Urgent Communications dated May 27, 2014. What’s so interesting is that the NPSTC (National Public Safety Technology Council) may be cutting their network-hardening short by not including all its users. Then again it is the NPSTC which really is suppose to only cover Public Safety concerns, so that is understandable, but the report does go into some handy information. 
We must remember that to achieve the hardening specifications, holistically, we must not forget all of the users in that they will bring hardening, bandwidth characteristics, that drive initial deployment and future upgrade specifications, plus the coverage aspects that will be dictated by user requirements. Meeting the needs of Public Safety is one thing, but Public Safety may not have the hardening characteristics that a Utility, or Forestry Agency, will have out in the middle of the most rural areas. You need to balance all the needs to achieve, not only the specifications required, but also the cost aspects of building in the areas that may not be economically feasible to Public Safety, but are just right for a combined need of Public Safety, Utilities, Agriculture and Forestry (as an example).  
One of the important factors of a Public private Partnership (The Myers Model™) is it essential characteristic to balance the needs of all Users in the network. The NPSTC report illustrates a one-sided view and by not highlighting the fact that “other users” will also have requirements gives the market the idea that this can’t be done, which is not true. In fact, the national build-out can be done, if, FirstNet, or the State through its SLIGP arrangement, can accumulate all of the State’s organizational entities, and their assets, as a means to highlight the needed specifications. That collection process will, or should, include a cost model analysis of broadband needs of each and every entity, as well as a projected recurring revenue stream. All of the variables will provide a balanced approach to user needs and projected payments for service. You will only find the answer to this in the Myers Model™.
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet – You’re acting like my six kids….just pick a business model and sell it already….act like an entrepreneur! Stop trying to herd cats!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
When are we going to understand that we are just building an LTE broadband company? The important point is the word “company” not network. Of course we are building a network, but that network is designed based on a plan of action; that plan of action is formulated by picking, and balancing the needs of your target market, your main shareholders, capital needs, partnership desires and product-to-revenue capabilities.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 is a an act that…blah, blah, blah….  Essentially the Act already puts into action the requirements that the Public Safety Broadband solution must meet. Crucially the requirement for “self-funding” and “self-sustaining” will be a driving force of the Business Plan you create. Also included in the Act is the requirement to be all-inclusive of Public Safety, and their geographic footprint, as to allow for fully interoperable communications between all First Responders. But how do we get there? We need to envision our endgame, create a plan, then based on that plan (business plan), create the design, outline the build, create the schedule — and then build it? That plan will highlight the best course of action – well before we need to know what design we must have.  Am I missing something here? Seems simple to me, but I’ve been in the telecom business since I joined the Army back in 1986…what the hell do I know!
How many RFI’s (and why are we even talking RFPs right now is beyond me), conferences, press briefings and board meetings do we need in order to just get this train moving? I have six kids and I can safely state that I can get them into the minivan faster that getting FirstNet to just adopt the business plan and set the standards, it’s a close call, but I refer to it as herding cats. Usually my last words to my children are, “just get in the car and buckle up, I’m leaving!” – incase you missed it; this is analogous to the State being the parent; FirstNet and the Public Safety Community being the kids.
If I were an entrepreneur, and I owned the D-Block Band 14 Spectrum, I would have formulated a vision of what my end-game was within a hour, else I wouldn’t own the spectrum. Just because you may know that the spectrum is valuable, doesn’t do any good without a sound vision that creates your business case. My vision would be to create a great broadband company, based on a product using LTE, targeting strong and stalwart Priority 1 and 2 customers, and then look for partners to help fund it.  It helps when my customer base won’t drive me crazy every time a new technology comes out; my business would have the backing of both the State and the Federal Government; plus, the added pleasure to sell my unused bandwidth to the commercial carriers or service providers; and, most importantly, have $7 Billion in my pocket to get it started.
This makes the actions needed quite simple…. take my vision…build my business case (cost impacts versus return on investment) then outline the best strategy to start its rollout, then take action to get it moving. In the end, all I’m doing is selling LTE broadband services, so why is this so hard to understand? Well, mainly, because you can’t build from top down (Federal) you have to build from bottom up (State).
If the $7 Billion was my personal cash (which from the taxpayer position the $7 Billion is mine), and I knew that that $7 Billion won’t cover my needs to build out my entire business solution, then I would start with what I can, using the approach that best meets my holistic needs, and then focus on getting to my end game. That end game is the full national network, the capital to sustain it, using the product of LTE. The output of that product is cash, which allows me to spread into other entrepreneurial pursuits, like, more Public Safety solutions, paying for First responders needs, or enticing private investors to help fund my idea – sound familiar?
Look at it this way: the US wants to build a pipeline from the Oil Sands of Northern Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico. It will cost some $20 Billion to build a pipeline across the Northern tier of Canada into Alaska down into Washington State, over to Buffalo New York, then down to Texas. Or we can just connect to the Canadian pipeline that already exists and goes straight from the Oil Sands project right into the Buffalo area for only $6 Billion. Many would think that because the American version cost more that we must do the Canadian version. In reality though, that means we would be investing almost 80% of that $6 Billion into Canada, not the United States. Where as if we go forward with the $20 Billion project 90% of that money goes right back into our economy – not Canada’s (Don’t get me wrong, I like the Canadians, but I gotta feed those six kids). It’s not about the amount of money it will take to get it done; it’s all about where the money goes to get it done.
We don’t need to be afraid of viewing this entire PSBN solution as a cost on the taxpayers, or the political message of generating cash revenue from the Public Safety Broadband Network; it’s fruitless to think we can control what others think. It’s all about where the money goes and how best it meets of the target market. Our biggest issue will be our need to lookout for greed, ambivalence, naiveté, coercion and corruption, or any detrimental affect that could interrupt the best business model. But we can’t even get to that stage if FirstNet doesn’t create a business plan, align it with the best go-to-market strategy, then present it to their partnered investors – those partners are the State Governors, local First Responders, Utilities, Transportation, DHS, and most of all, the Private Equity Investors – unless you think the taxpayers should pay for this.
This isn’t a game of agendas to drive a winner; it is an attempt to create a broadband business that best needs of all those involved. Notice I didn’t say anything about carriers, vendors, or contractors. In this case FirstNet, the organization, which is controlled by its board, is the entrepreneur; any entrepreneur would not try to create a model that investors weren’t willing to invest in. Trying to partner on a technical solution, with an assortment of vendors and contractors, before you have completed what your target market is, what your product is, how you need to sell that product, how you must fund that products introduction, and ultimately, how you collect cash from that product, is what needs to happen.  
The rules to this game are already written into the act. Just read the act, pick the best model that aligns with its requirements, and then sell it to your investors. It really is that simple. Following those engagements, a course of action, or next steps, will present itself. Shot gunning the side of the bar with conferences, sessions, meetings, and webinars, is not going to get the Board to understand the business model any better than understanding what you are building (an LTE network), its functional capabilities, and how best to productize its services for your target market – in this case “Public Safety Service Organizations” — as depicted in the Act as well. It’s all there. Just read the Act! I’ve spent the better part of 11 years now focused on the best business models for just such an entrepreneurial endeavor, and unfortunately, I am the only one who took the time to do so, which tells you about the kind of person I am. That sounds feisty doesn’t it? Or crazy? Oh well, like I do with my kids, sometimes you have to light a fire under their ass to get them moving. Once they move they love it.  But who am I other than just a Dad and….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – Why Chief Dowd’s 911 was never going to succeed!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
The issue with the misalignment on the 911 system in New York City, and the communications network, is the fact that the Capital Program Office of the MTA is in charge of building, running and maintain the 23 Point-of-Presence (PoPs) locations that these wireless LMR solutions and the data centralization of 911 are reliant upon. The MTA is heavily unionized and influenced with corruption. Chief Dowd wouldn’t have been the first, or the last, official to take favors from the vendors and contractors in the city. Chief Dowd was just the latest to fall prey to the lobbying.
The MTA of New York has been planning, installing and upgrading the old SONET ATM (Phase 1 and 2 which was originally awarded to Siemens back in 1996) network to the next generation of DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexing) and Gigabit Ethernet solution for the last 20 years. This upgrade was a much-contested suggestion I proposed some years ago – me playing golf with the then CPM President. I was the Project Manager for the oversight of Siemens for Phase 1. My direct line of thinking basically informed him that they were wasting more than $250 Million on the purchase of 271 SONET ATM switches for a product line that didn’t meet specs and was, in fact, declared end-of-life – this was around 2002. The product was the SeaBridge Switch. Eventually I introduced Ericsson to at least get the right switches installed so that it could meet spec, but this didn’t alleviate the issue that the comm closets were not prepped to handle the HVAC concerns and the water penetration issues.
As I just hinted about, one of many issues that they face, they insist on utilizing the 23 PoP locations that are located within the subway system, that also tie together 291 of the old communication closets located in stations that the MTA maintains. The issue is that these closets are decrepit and leaking with water, after all, the subway was put in in 1904 and, as you might guess, so were these communication closets.
The simple solution would be to splice the fibers, which run throughout the cities subway, into the basement of buildings located above, then retrofit for the hardening characteristics that are needed. We had 900 -1000 pound cabinets that needed to be installed, but we couldn’t even get them into the stations due to the narrowness of the stairs accessing the closets. We spent 10 times more on these cabinets in hopes that it could accommodate with the humidity and precipitation. Once again, I stated this years ago.
The difficulty that the MTA was facing actually became the basis for my dissertation back in 2003, in short, “why can’t the MTA build a telecommunications network”. The outcome of that research capitalized on the fact that the City needed to utilize the Public Private Partnership model I came up with, this is the same model that is being considered today by FirstNet and about 37 States. Just so happens that the MTA in New York was my case study – who would have thought? I am not surprised that the 911 solution for the City is in disarray, and you can count on the fact that there will be fraud and corruption uncovered as well.
The contractors that typically get all the work, not the big guys, the big guys are just the face of the project, I’m talking about the contractors that are tied to all the Unions within the city. The reason they can’t get anything done is because the Unions are killing any momentum they try to move forward with; if its not the Unions then it is all the inbred, or in-bed, relationships that are pervasive throughout any of the city contracts. I wouldn’t count on anything actually being done in the future either, unless DeBlasio will go after the unions and the corruption – I wouldn’t count on it though.   

Just some guy and a blog….

FCC declares all of telecoms as a utility — then the access providers to broadband win and the taxpayers lose.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Why is it that the “Who’s Who” of telecoms wants the FCC to classify broadband as a Utility?
Nearly 30 CEOs and groups representing the nation’s broadband companies called on Wheeler to reject calls to reclassify broadband service as a public utility in a letter that circulated May 13.
“Not only is it questionable that the commission could defensibly reclassify broadband service under Title II, such an action would greatly distort the future development of, and investment in, tomorrow’s broadband networks and services,” said the letter organized by Broadband For America.
The list of CEOs at the bottom of the letter was a Who’s Who of the nation’s telecommunications firms including AT&T, Charter Communications Inc., Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., among others. The letter also was signed by the CEOs of CTIA – The Wireless Association, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association and US Telecom.
(FCC Chairman Pushes Ahead on New Rules Despite Pressure From Many Directions Thursday, May 15, 2014)
One idea is that the telecom giants of yesterday are sitting on a lot of old infrastructure. By classifying broadband as a utility then those telecom players can off-load their archaic infrastructure onto the taxpayer – that’s why.
You see the carriers understand that they are being squeezed between ever-dwindling access model and the rise of the content service model, both of which they are not traditionally competitive in. What better way to formulate an exit strategy from the access model than off-loading your old assets of towers, fiber, etc., onto an organization that doesn’t understand the market fully. By relinquishing themselves of the burden of owning the overheads of the infrastructure, and the cost of maintenance, the telecom players can better position themselves for the content service market; the only issue will be their size and capability to morph into an all new business model. The smaller guys will either be bought up or put forward as scrap.
What better timing then to act on a brand new FCC Chairman and push him to a quick resolve by getting him to name the entire telecommunication infrastructure as a Utility. If that happens then taking care of the grass, and upgrading the network, will fall on the taxpayers — or a few investor owned efforts. We aren’t talking about a utility meter here, we’re talking about a complex technical architecture that will just fall apart once its current players get relief of ownership.
But, here’s an idea; what if the carriers were able to get all the access, 100% geographic coverage, complimenting their already existing metro markets without building a single tower – and not hitting the taxpayers for funding? As an expert in this, there is only one model that fits the mold perfectly, the same model that FirstNet should be based upon – The Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet Business Model Comparisons

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Being that this chart has hit a nerve with a lot of readers I have expanded it to include more topics
Thought everyone might find this chart interesting.
Updated
The Myers Model™
Spectrum Arbitrage
Carrier Supported Subscription Model
Vendor Finance Model — Motorola Model

Myers ModelTM is a Public Private Partnership where as the State, and FirstNet, maintain board control of a private broadband company for the State.

Spectrum Slicing Carrier Sale is basically selling parts of the D-Block spectrum to the commercial carriers.

Carrier Based Subscriber Model is just like you get from the commercial carriers today using their networks.

Vendor Finance Model, better known as the Motorola-BayRICS model, partially financed from the vendor with strict terms and conditions.

But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet Business Model — it intends to sell the D-Block spectrum to the carriers. If this is true FirstNet will not succeed.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Why would FirstNet try to sell parcels of the D-Block spectrum to the commercial carriers? What happens in 10-years when the carriers are facing a great deal of scrutiny to compete in the real content world? What will be the impact on the State, FirstNet, Public Safety, and the taxpayers when the carriers come back saying they have to shed assets to compete in the content business? What kind of fiasco will the carriers leave the taxpayers with? How vulnerable will Public Safety be? What impact will it have on National Security? Why do we need these problems?
The carriers don’t really understand their own business model. If a carrier believes it must own the D-Block spectrum in order to provide wireless services, then they are doomed already. Contrary to recent moves within the industry the Average Rate Per User (ARPU) keeps dropping and the overheads keep increasing. In order to adjust the carrier must shed the cost associated with the archaic infrastructure assets (towers, fiber, etc.) and move into a higher margin of services by selling content. In the end, if the carrier wants to survive, their only chance is by eliminating their desire of owning their own infrastructure assets, which includes spectrum. But, knowing that these organizations are driven by the mindset of money, I’m afraid their own mindset will be there doom, unless they can eliminate their senior executives that are driving the models of yesteryear.
The new models are: you sell access or you sell content. It’s obvious that owning the assets to deliver services combined with access is not working, thus the desire for players like AT&T to sell-off their towers. Players like Google, Netflix, Vudu, or any other streaming based content providers, will out price a carrier any day of the week. Why will they always beat them in price? It’s simple — they don’t own the infrastructure. Why pay $180 a month for a Tier 2 program of TV on Uverse when I can get it for $9 a month from Netflix, or Aereo, through my $50 Internet Access? To counter that the carriers will charge more for carrying Netflix traffic, only means my $8 monthly bill to Netflix goes up to $9 – still way better than paying $180 a month. Better yet, if I were Google, I would just give away the access charge by rolling it into existing content services? How will a carrier compete with no charge on access to the Internet, i.e. Google Fiber? I mean if AT&T wants to compete in the business of selling access, then they will need to shed other, non-profitable services, such as voice services.  If they want to play in the content market, then they will need to shed infrastructure to match the competition. Or, maybe the carriers realize they are doomed already?
If you’re a carrier – what do you want to do? Will you make up your mind already? You sell off all your assets, i.e. towers, fiber, etc., because of overheads eating away at your margins, yet you try to own the D-Block spectrum? What does that give you? If you own the spectrum you need towers to work on it, but you just sold your assets that would enable you the ability to use the spectrum. (Example: AT&T sold all towers to Crown Castle) Fiber to the home seems to be undercutting your model as well, I for one don’t even use the traditional voice services anymore and have reverted to IP based calling – and nobody even knows the difference – and it doesn’t cost me a dime. As for cellular service, I use MVNO (Managed Virtual Network) and I only pay $45 a month on a month-to-month unlimited plan (talk, text and data). I bought my own phone and have no disconnect charges or anything, so I’m not stuck to any carrier contract. How about the TV service? I don’t even use the traditional TV service anymore; I use Netflix, Vudu, and others for my service. No more of the $200 a month service charge to get a bunch of channels I don’t watch anyway. Reminds me of the Dire Straight’s song – “57 Channels and Nothin On”. Do we see the writing on the wall here?
You can be assured, when players like Google and Netflix, really get going it will be hard for any carrier to compete in the content business. Does anyone realize that Google has a Market Cap of almost $700 Billion (Intraday + Enterprise values)? How about FaceBook, which has only been around for a few years and already has a Market Cap of $500 Billion. Netflix has been around for two years and already has a Market Cap of $40 Billion – and growing. Essentially, the carrier model is being squeezed into, either selling access, or competing with real content providers. What happens when all the stations, i.e. Fox News, or MSNBC, start selling direct access to streaming video services? The list goes on and on. Does anyone realize that GE owns 61% of the cable industry? Imagine how much content they have to throw around?
What does this mean to National Public Safety Broadband Network? With FirstNet trying to build a business model of selling slices of the D-Block spectrum to the national carriers, means that the FirstNet, the State, Public Safety and the taxpayer will now be subsidizing a carrier model that is on the downturn. In a few years Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile will follow in AT&T’s steps by selling off their tower and fiber assets as well. This will be necessary to survive; else AT&T will start eating away at their markets by providing cheaper wireless broadband services. In turn Google will eat away at AT&T. Big fish eating little fish scenario.
FirstNet will be faced with the daunting task of going through a tremendous upheaval of user rights, access short-falls, and cost cutting by the carriers, who in the end, will end up selling back, or giving back, the rights to the spectrum anyway. We think that the state of the commercial infrastructure supporting Public Safety is bad today? Wait 5-10 years from now when FirstNet is in bed with the carriers. Talking about a threat on National Security, who betters to do more harm than our own lack of knowledge in executing a telecom business model? Once again, we will be our own worst enemy.
The spectrum does not belong to FirstNet — it belongs to Public Safety. The majority of Public Safety resides within a State, which means it is under the control of the Governor. The Governor reports to its citizens and is held to the belief he/she will do what’s best for the State and its citizens. How does selling chunks of the D-Block broadband spectrum help the State? How will FirstNet pay for the build-out of the National Public Safety Broadband Network? How much money does FirstNet believe it will get by selling chunks of spectrum, which it isn’t entitled to? What about the “self-sustaining” piece of the legislation? Who will pay for the long-term operations and maintenance of the network after they have sold off the spectrum? What happens if FirstNet fails to achieve their goals, yet have already sold the spectrum to the carriers?  In the end Public Safety and the taxpayers will be the ones holding the bags on these decisions?

Selling slices of the D-Block to the Carriers still does not address who will build FirstNet. In fact, it only makes the deployment for the National Public Safety Broadband Network tougher by shrinking the amount of available spectrum that Public Safety was granted in the first place. Selling spectrum to the carriers does not address the most important aspect of the NPSBN solution — covering the rural areas.

There is a solution.

But who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet — Are Carriers trying to say they are "Public Safety Service Organizations"? Not by the Governor’s standards.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

I attended the Broadband Summit that TJ Kennedy spoke at — I don’t think TJ meant, in anyway, that the Utilities are not viewed as essential to the success of the National Public Safety Broadband Network. Actually, you can go through the archives and see that the Board, and the GM, have indeed stated exactly the opposite. I’m referring to the following out-take in Fiercewireless:

“Further, he indicated that FirstNet intends to solicit outside input regarding whether access to the FirstNet network should be restricted to fire, emergency medical services (EMS) and law enforcement or should be extended to critical-infrastructure entities such as utilities, which desire broadband spectrum to enable smart-grid technologies. ‘Some topics we anticipate putting out for public comment include eligible users and state opt-in/opt-out,’ Kennedy said.” (Tammy Parker, Fiercewireless)

The fact of the matter, the national build out really doesn’t have anything to do with towers, in reality, it will all be about real-estate. You need real-estate to put the towers on. Sorry but First Responders don’t own enough land to get the coverage they need,let alone the money to fund their own build. The NPSBN needs the secondary users. The towers, which will be new builds, will be completely different than the traditional carrier standards, plus, for the carriers it’s not about owning the assets, its all about the spectrum. No where in the act does it define the secondary user. It is a fact that the network has to be built locally, and I don’t know about your State,  the Governor controls the State, not the Federal Government. Therefore, it is the Governor who needs to decide who the local “Public Safety Services Organizations” are (as defined by the act).

Through the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) became Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012). It states in section (27) PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES —The term ‘‘public safety services’’—
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 337(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(f)); and
(B) includes services provided by emergency response providers, as that term is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).

In short, section 337(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC), it states under sub-section
(f) Definitions: The term ‘‘public safety services’’ means services-

(A) The sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property;
(B) That are provided-
(i) by State or local government entities;
or
(ii) by non-governmental organizations
that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision 
of such services; and

(C) That are not made commercially available to the public by the provider
The Law Flow Diagram by Scott Foster

With most of the States I have spoken with, they don’t see the carriers as “Public Safety Service Organizations”, so what does that mean? Just because a carrier provides network access, enabling a true “Public Safety Service Organization” to help complete its Public Safety mission, doesn’t mean it is actually a Public Safety entity. There is a reason that the term “Commercial Carrier” is used….thats because they make money by selling commercial service. A Commercial Carrier is not a Non-For-Profit, Police Chief, or Federal Emergency Management group, if they were, then their existing networks would be built to better standards to withstand the disaster scenarios. But, unfortunately, history has proven that just the opposite is true, whereas, their assets become non-responsive during a disaster, thus, no use to true Public Safety Organizations. Such scenarios was the catalyst for the President of the United States to dedicate the D-Block, band-14, spectrum to Public Safety.

It’s pretty clear to me that the Law dictates that secondary users are allowed — am I missing something? (ref below) Are we getting hints that the carriers are losing the battle to influence the control the spectrum? Note: the law states “access or use” of the NPSBN….it doesn’t say anything about granting the use of the spectrum or allocating the spectrum to anybody other than Public Safety. I mean, if I were a carrier, I would be getting pretty nervous that all my work to grab control of the spectrum, is in fact, not illustrated in the Act.

What really confuses me is that the carriers gain the most by backing the use of the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership than by trying to grab the spectrum for their own need. If I were a commercial carrier, why would I want to own the spectrum, after all, you own it means you pay for it, plus you have to spend a lot of capital to use and maintain it, capital that is only taking away from my profit margins? Those profit margins affect my job security, where as, the shareholders will, in fact, hold me responsible for. If I can administer a business model that eliminates my need to own the costly infrastructure, plus the long term maintenance, and improve my bottom-line with huge margins, why wouldn’t I want to present that to the shareholders? Think about it, I can, not only improve my bottom-line, but also shed the risk, and put any network outages onto a third party — that happens to be backed by the Federal and State Government – why wouldn’t I? Seems like a no-brainer if you ask me. Owning and controlling the spectrum is so old school and costly.

As a carrier, I would only have to continue with my current operations of commercial service, using the investments I already own, then wait for the NPSBN to be completed. Once completed, sell-off my physical tower assets, or divest them into the physical infrastructure of FirstNet, shore up my arrangement with a protected MVNO (Managed Virtual Network Operator), and then move towards an all-content service approach with much higher margins on service. The real question is why haven’t I been backing this model? Shareholders are waiting, and when they read articles like this one, how long before they start asking themselves if they have the right leadership at the helm?

Then again, I’m….

Just some guy and a blog……

SEC. 6208. PERMANENT SELF-FUNDING; DUTY TO ASSESS AND COL- LECT FEES FOR NETWORK USE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337), the First Responder Network Authority is authorized to assess and collect the following fees: (1) NETWORK USER FEE.—A user or subscription fee from each entity, including any public safety entity or secondary user, that seeks access to or use of the nationwide public safety broadband network.
(2) LEASE FEES RELATED TO NETWORK CAPACITY.—

H. R. 3630—61 (A) IN GENERAL.—A fee from any entity that seeks to enter into a covered leasing agreement. (B) COVERED LEASING AGREEMENT.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a ‘‘covered leasing agreement’’ means a written agreement resulting from a public-private arrangement to construct, manage, and operate the nation- wide public safety broadband network between the First Responder Network Authority and secondary user to permit— (i) access to network capacity on a secondary basis for non-public safety services; and (ii) the spectrum allocated to such entity to be used for commercial transmissions along the dark fiber of the long-haul network of such entity. (3) LEASE FEES RELATED TO NETWORK EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE.—A fee from any entity that seeks access to or use of any equipment or infrastructure, including antennas or towers, constructed or otherwise owned by the First Responder Network Authority resulting from a public-private arrangement to construct, manage, and operate the nationwide public safety broadband network. (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEE AMOUNTS; PERMANENT SELF- FUNDING.—The total amount of the fees assessed for each fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be sufficient, and shall not exceed the amount necessary, to recoup the total expenses of the First Responder Network Authority in carrying out its duties and responsibilities described under this subtitle for the fiscal year involved. (c) ANNUAL APPROVAL.—The NTIA shall review the fees assessed under this section on an annual basis, and such fees may only be assessed if approved by the NTIA. (d) REQUIRED REINVESTMENT OF FUNDS.—The First Responder Network Authority shall reinvest amounts received from the assessment of fees under this section in the nationwide public safety interoperable broadband network by using such funds only for constructing, maintaining, operating, or improving the network.

FirstNet, the State, and letting go of the past! How your own in-house telecom guy will be your problem!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

One of the biggest issues a State will face in implementing it’s Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership could be its own staff. Having educated resources on your staff that know telecommunications could be one of your biggest stumbling blocks. Why? Allow me to explain.

If the State is initiating a Public Private Partnership, the priority of that business relationship is balancing needs, risk and advancements. Everyone gets to a point where they feel they have to do it themselves because know one else knows their pain.  The fact of the matter is that such viewpoints actually deprive the effort of forward movement. At some point we have to realize that we don’t have all the answers, plus, the old saying holds true, “you touch it you own it.” Essentially, owning it means you take on all the risk. How do you move this forward then?

At a point in a Public Private Partnership, weather being submissive to your part, or forcefully shown the answer, we all realize that the balance is what is more important. When you focus on the technology, how sexy it may be, you get drawn away from the need to balance the model. Technology is just the facilitator to your service needs. The technology doesn’t drive your business, it is a tool to accomplish what you need so that you can concentrate on your model. In this case the tool is LTE, microwave, fiber and supportive technologies.

In order to keep your eye on the “business requirements” people, and organizations, need to know where they play in the bigger picture. Anyone can commission a few technical “experts” and say they can do the technology themselves, when the fact is, by taking on that role they take on the risk, which means, if it succeeds you own it, but, it also means if it fails you own it. This has typically been the issue with past, large, complex, telecom jobs going in house. As I pointed out in my dissertation back in 2009, it is not wise to mix business models when it comes to telecoms. Whether it be a Public Safety entity, State government, or Utility, they all require the telecom tool to get their job done, the issue is that telecom needs it’s own business case in order to make it successful; it’s the best way to maximize your money and your investment. As we have witnessed in the past trying to get a Utility, or a Police Chief, to take on large-scale telecoms they had competing business needs. At what point does a Police Chief, realize that they either; need to be a telecom company; or be a Police Chief? This is where balancing needs and sharing telecommunication requirements becomes important.

Allow the organizations to focus on their traditional business roles, then establish the risk with the areas of their expertise. In the Public Safety Broadband Program, and utilizing the Myers Model™, this balancing of needs, risks, and the advancements, are all properly placed in their appropriate roles and responsibilities. The model means that a State, or Federal Agency, is not the best choice when designing, constructing and operating a broadband company at the State level. The model, specifically, allows the State to create a broadband company that is only focused on the needs of Public Safety. The main area of concern for a State Governor, and FirstNet, will be board control over that entity, and how much they are willing to give up to meet their broadband telecom needs. We are at the cusp of solving a lot of the State’s prior issues when it came to centralizing fiber optic projects, broadband access to rural and data consolidation and manipulation.

The Myers Model™ meets, 100%, of the requirements, as laid out in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act. In actuality, the model exceeds the requirements of the law to the advantage of the State and the Country.

But…I’m…..

Just some guy and a blog.