Just read the update on LA-RICs entitled “LA-RICS helped by 700 MHz narrowband order, set to begin LTE network deployment next week.” (Oct 28, 2014 Donny Jackson | Urgent Communications) and truth is there were no surprises. The fact that the LMR solution has moved forward, and the LTE solution has not, only illustrates the imbalance of the business model, the needs of its users, and the false path of believing that “if you build it they will come approach” does not apply to a very complex broadband program. The reality is that Mr Mallon and Chairman Fujioka need not spend any of the bonds or grants on physically building the broadband LTE network, plus there is a better way to attract the “cities” that will not commit. As I have stated in earlier articles, the approach that Mr Mallon is taking is not the correct one. I don’t say this to embarrass anyone; rather I say this to help the State out in that it really needs this Public Safety solution. Whether you like my comments, or not, reality really stinks sometimes – a reality this messenger did not create.

The course the LA-RICS program is committed too will be tied up in the “chicken or the egg” scenario for sometime unless they take a different approach — an approach that I have pitched on many occasions. By the way we’re one year into the 2-3 years I said we would be tied down in a quagmire before a new course has to be set – that means another 1-2 years to go unless the light comes on. The issue is, and will always be, the balance between user requirements, user needs, private investments and the ownership. Until someone really takes a look into that aspect of the LA-RICS program, we will continue to funnel cash down a dark hole. Designing and building the solution is the sexy and easy part. Building a complex broadband network without a business plan is like building the Space Station without any instructions. But then again Men don’t need any stupid instructions. We get there when we get there. 😉

Here is another interesting point. The article mentions Motorola as the contractor for the LA-RICS program. It’s understandable that there are those that really like Motorola and have relied upon them in the past for “LMR” based Public Safety solutions – after all, it’s just a tower and some radios – we can do that – right? Have you noticed though that every “LTE” broadband initiative awarded to Motorola has taken a downward spiral or went into stalemate? It’s just an observation but BayRICS, Harris County and a few others have all come to the same question – why do we have a vendor leading the effort when private investment is actually required? The fact is, not only is Motorola burning cash in these pursuits, but the State agencies that continue to encourage their efforts are as well. Having a solid long-standing relationship, and using that relationship to “implement the real solution, the solution that nobody else really understands because they don’t do what we do” may not be the best approach. If this were a scoreboard then Motorola’s efforts are not doing very well; neither are the State representatives that keep pushing a solution that does not engage the open market. 

Motorola needs to ask itself if it’s in the best interest of Motorola to continue such pursuits when the company is spending more cash than revenue they are generating on the effort. I don’t know too many private, or commercial, companies that have survived on such a model. The State Governor’s need to step in as well. Why is it we have to continue spending taxpayer money for such a poor record of success? Had the LA-RICs program adopted the Public Private Partnership approach from the start, we would not be in a scenario where we are comparing the reproductive cycle of chickens and eggs.

But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

Just read the following article written by Andrew Seybold on Urgent Communications entitled, “Partnerships are much more than contracts—an important distinction for FirstNet” . I agree with Andy about the need for Public Private Partnership, but one thing needs to be stated. 

One can never get enough of bits of information that put a clear perspective on where things are going and what it is we’re holistically trying to accomplish. Case in point, a recent article in Fierce Wireless entitled “Report: Verizon, T-Mobile spending consistently on capex, while AT&T, Sprint hit bumps” (October 13, 2014 | By Phil Goldstein)

In the article it explores the capital expenditure of the two largest carriers in the US; Verizon and AT&T. I want to bring to everyone’s attention the very last paragraph:

If that doesn’t give us an eye-full of what we should expect for FirstNet, then I don’t know what will. The article only addresses the capital expenditures (CapEx) here (money needed to spend to do one-time projects or programs such as an upgrade) have nothing to do with the long-term operational expenses (OpEx). The fact is a government-funded approach, with bonds and grants, will not work in this instance. The money is just not there and the taxpayers are consistently becoming a bit perturbed about our spending habits. Let alone we can’t risk the impact on the timeline associated with the upcoming election cycle.

The elections will have an impact on what funding we were already allocated. It will be arduous for anyone to convince everyone else that we need another Federal Organization to build something that should be delivered by private industry. If building a website for Healthcare is any gauge, then we must observe all the red signs. It’s not that the people within the Government are all bad, it just means I wouldn’t expect a Federal Organization to market and deliver a website – that’s not what they do. I also wouldn’t expect a website company to perform as the Federal Government. The National Broadband Network is much larger and definitely more complex and costly than a website. Whatever course we set today could be disastrous for many if not done correctly.

I just completed my response to the RFI advertised by FirstNet and I have to say that the idea to do one holistic national build-out approach is a disaster in waiting. If you use the website for healthcare as a case study you will see that their approach to the market place took a “top-down” approach, just like FirstNet has proposed for its RFP in the future. Had the website been designed bottom up, then things would have turned out drastically different. It would have been manageable with a grounding of lessons learned. In the case of FirstNet I think there may be too many people drinking the cool-aid that just because the Public Safety Broadband Network, once completed will be twice the size of the two largest commercial carriers combined, that we should mirror how we build using their perspective. There are no shortcuts here. We have to start small and build big. Going full-bore at the top level is definitely not how you want to try and build National Public Safety Broadband Network. We have to start locally and build-up. Trying to rope our arms around the whole national solution will be extremely inefficient and succumb to problems, delays and over expenditures, thus wasted tax dollars.

One good thing I did see in the RFI was the thought process associated with “thinking outside of the box” and the “creative approach to financing”. If FirstNet is serious about their intentions then this will be the savior. The fact is we can’t build this network without substantial private investment. How do we attract private investment? Well the only way to accomplish this is through Public Private Partnerships (P3) – a P3 that generates a return on their investment.

In order to insure the success of a solid P3 we need an ability to stay focused and establish a solid understanding of what it is the investors, us, are investing in. By stating a holistic national strategy only complicates that message and distracts the investor’s focus. Once the investor completes a thorough review of the opportunity, they will pass judgment as to whether or not it is a sound opportunity.

The focus of FirstNet is too broad, complex and outlandish in its strategy and will only result in a confused investor; or it could setup a monopolistic solution from a given few.  The investors want to see a realistic and logical flow of what it is they are investing in, which ultimately creates the projected ROI or payback. The investors also want to see equality in the investment opportunities. We can’t get there from this holistic national programmatic approach. Without meeting those basic characteristics, plus, add the perception of a Federal organization in bed with a commercial carrier, only forms a bottomless pit of wasted time and money — money that is obviously going to be needed for “our own” upgrade.  If the referenced article above is any indication, then we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg on this one.

The network rollout solution, and its self-funding needs, must start with one or two States. We must start at the granular level in order to keep a perspective to control the outflow of lessons learned, as well as to track the progress needed to schedule its build-out nationally. As I have stated early in my blogging days, its only a matter of time for the States to take hold of their own destiny – FirstNet needs to envelop itself into a partial ownership role for each of the State’s executed P3 frameworks else it will miss out completely. FirstNet also needs to start focusing on the national applications and control center roles, where as they need to start envisioning their control centers, datacenters and applications store – that is what this RFP should be about. Let the physical build happen at the State level. Working with multiple States to build their own infrastructure of broadband is much more of a manageable approach than shot gunning the entire barn. Nothing is perfect, but some things are just better aligned.

Remember, AT&T just spent $33 Billion in two-quarters for an upgrade of LTE — we haven’t even installed our baseline infrastructure yet. But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog….