Month: October 2015

FirstNet — A Rebuttal to FirstNet’s Legal Interpretations. I emphasize the word "buttal".

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
For those that think about “conspiracy theories” and FirstNet let make it short and sweet – there is only two ways to build the Public Safety Broadband Network:
1.     Partner with a carrier and be restricted to their requirements to make their shareholders happy.
2.     State builds their own broadband company to deliver prioritize Public Safety then allow the carriers to run as an MVNO on their network – as Priority 2.
Option 1 will be limited to the metropolitan areas (42% of the Nation). Option 1 will also grant full, controlling, access for the carriers to the D-Block spectrum. There are many more, but I want to address an article soon. There simply is no downside to a State building their own network – in fact the only downside will be the State having to deal with all the positive that will come of it, i.e. making more revenue than FirstNet; funding its own build without taxpayer money; and having enough revenue to self-sustain itself for the foreseeable future. Plus, Option 2 fits the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 to the “T”; Option 1 does not meet the requirements of the Act at all. No matter how you interpret the law, nowhere does it state that FirstNet should give the spectrum to the commercial carriers.
There is also a lot of downside to the Feds, and the commercial carriers, if the State builds its own network. If a State creates its own P3 (Public Private Partnership) broadband entity, to build and sustain their own statewide Public Safety Broadband Network, the carriers will be positioned as second tier to Public Safety. Plus the carriers will not have direct access to the D-Block spectrum. The only access the carriers will be able to capture will be through an MVNO (Managed Virtual Network Operation) riding on top of the PSBN solution. Outside of the fact that the carriers view themselves as second to no one when it comes to telecoms, there are some folks working for the carriers that see this whole State Opt Out thing as a bad thing, but in reality it’s a good thing.
Let the State create its own P3 broadband entity and let them build their own statewide network; by doing so allows the carrier an alternative to generate services using their existing technology with more hardened infrastructure paid for by someone else. Instead of the carrier being limited to the metropolitan area they will be able to stretch themselves out to all the rural areas without spending a dime in capital infrastructure costs. Plus their operational expenses will be limited to their own operational necessities to administer content services. This is exactly the reason they sold, or are selling, all the fixed towers assets. The carrier is selling its assets so that it doesn’t have to carry them on their books, thus improved profit margins for the shareholders. But, there are some within the carrier space that believe they “have to own” the spectrum. This is a false belief and in fact is just the fear of change creeping in.
What does this mean for FirstNet? If a State creates its own P3 broadband entity, and then build their own infrastructure, this would mean that FirstNet loses any viability to build anything under the control of the federal government.

To illustrate a lot of this thinking you can capture the high-points within a recent article by Donny Jackson entitled,  “FirstNet’s latest legal interpretations make opt-out alternative less appealing to states, territories.” (Oct 20, 2015) there are some points I feel need to be made.
The context of the article surrounds statements made by FirstNet itself through their lead attorney as to what they think the Act was intended to do.
“Trying to integrate a bunch of opt-out states into the system promises to be more difficult and could have a negative impact on its economic viability.”
For FirstNet’s nationwide solution this is definitely true. It’s never been about how the network will be built, its always been about a business model that works for all, yet protects the Public Safety industry’s needs. The model that FirstNet is pitching with the carriers, in fact, will not be economically viable. Unfortunately, as history has proven, FirstNet (the Feds) must fail in order to see what it’s missing, which in fact may result in damage being done to the opportunity and the taxpayers.
“We must provide an important clarification for anyone reviewing the “opt out” alternative for the first time: choosing the opt-out alternative does NOT mean that a state or territory would actually get out of FirstNet. The “opt out” term is used in the law, but it is not a very accurate depiction of the alternative.”
Neither is their interpretation of “FirstNet”. Do they mean “FirstNet” as in the entity? Or, do they mean “FirstNet” as in the holistic solution of broadband service? Just a simple statement like “I’m working on FirstNet” can mean two different things. I think what they are trying to elude to is that the term “opt out” does not mean the entire concept of FirstNet in whole, I don’t think anybody believes this to be the case. The term “opt out” means the State will take its own initiative to build a standardized solution coordinated by FirstNet. What business model that will be used for the solution will be based upon will of the Governor and under his purview. 
“The path of least resistance is for a governor to accept the plan offered by FirstNet, which then is responsible for all costs associated with the buildout and maintenance of the public-safety LTE network within the state or territory. The alternative is for the governor to choose the “opt-out” alternative, which would call for the state to deploy and maintain the RAN within its borders while continuing to use FirstNet’s LTE network core and 700 MHz spectrum.”
“The path to least resistance” will be for FirstNet to provide the States a framework of a P3 that enables the State to create its own solution based on a standardized framework of approved technical designs (minimalistic) and vendor-approved equipment coordinated by FirstNet. Either implementation of the “Opt In” or “Opt Out” solution was never going to stray from standardized approach of LTE. Even if the State builds its own solution, the State was never going to pay for, or sustain, the P3 entity that runs the State’s LTE broadband solution. Under my P3 model it will in fact be funded and paid for by private investors. The private investor partnership with the State will create the entity that will maintain the solution for the foreseeable future. FirstNet’s solution can’t do that. FirstNet is hoping the commercial carriers will do it, for free, in return they get to own the spectrum. In true form its called a “Bate and Switch”.
“By law, the decision rests with the governor of each state or territory. The reality is that a governor unilaterally making a decision to opt out—thereby the state or territory to pay network costs in perpetuity—against the wishes of the state legislature and others would be taking a huge political risk, but that is allowed by law.”
I’m sorry, but who is living a “political risk” here? The definition of “political risk” is being defined as we speak (or write) by FirstNet. Plotting “opt out” against “opt in” has been the talk of the game since day one. In fact, the political risk associated with a State Governor to “opt out” diminishes drastically; where as the FirstNet “opt in” just keeps piling on.
The fact still remains that FirstNet, in order to be a success, will still require a 95% “opt in” solution, without that, FirstNet at the federal level, will be a failure. Meanwhile, during FirstNet’s disaster party, the State will be left holding the bag and cleaning up afterwards, thus performing an “opt out” anyway. Need proof, take a look at LA-RICs, the entire scope was curtailed to one third of its original plan because of political in-fighting between the federal government and the County (State), plus the County even had internal political struggles between cities. Who is more at risk here?
“Some saw FirstNet as a chance to generate revenues within the state that could be used to bolster depleted budgets still suffering from the aftermath of the global credit crisis of 2008, but FirstNet officials quickly tried to quash this notion, noting that the law mandates that revenues be put back into the network.”
I afraid to say that the interpretation of the law states the State, and FirstNet, must reinvest any profit; it says nothing about private investment income. In fact the law states that the authority is there to use commercial services to generate cash if desired. Setting up a P3 includes private investment of which represents a share of the entity created. In this case the State brings the land, access to the spectrum, and most importantly the backing of the State. The private investments bring in the cash to build and maintain it for many years to come.  The users of the network will bring the revenue.
Any money made off the network would be split between the owners of the network, through their representative share of ownership, and the State (FirstNet). The State is mandated to put the money back into “Public Safety” needs, which includes the “network”.  Users of the network come in three categories: Priority 1 being Public Safety; Priority 2 State entities and agencies (whomever the governor chooses to be); and Priority three being consumer traffic and commercial services. In this scenario there will be enough revenue to pay for Priority 1 users – First Responders.  
The FirstNet states that their commercial carrier partnership will be fully paid for and that the State won’t have to pay anything. Has anyone ever seen anything put in by the federal government that didn’t require State taxpayer money – specifically in relationship to telecommunications? Any deployment by FirstNet will not actually come from FirstNet. FirstNet will require the local contractor base of tower constructors, fiber installations and datacenter/NOC builders. This is a good thing in that “local” means within a State. It will be the base of State taxpayers that will be left paying for the remainder of the State’s billion-dollar deployment ($300 Million for fiber network + 500 Million for the wireless RAN; and another $200+ (minimum) applications delivery framework. FirstNet only has $7 Billion in the bank, which equates to roughly $125 Million per State. Where will FirstNet get the rest of the money during an election cycle?
In FirstNet’s mind they are hoping that a commercial carrier partner will come in and make the investment to build the network for them. Only problem with this model is that the carriers never build out to the rural areas (60% of the remaining landmass not covered by the FirstNet-Carrier model) because 5 farmers in a rural part of the State don’t generte enough revenue for the carrier’s shareholders. Without that ROI for the carriers, they will simply state that someone else has to pay for it – who will that be? I can guarantee you it won’t be the feds – it will be state taxpayers.   
“But FirstNet’s legal interpretations undermine that idea, removing most of the “reward” potential from the risk/reward equation that governors must weigh. Without getting into a lot of legalese, FirstNet’s position is that densely populated states choosing to opt out must contribute financially to the nationwide public-safety broadband initiative, just as they would had they accepted FirstNet’s deployment plan for the state.”
Here we go with the “share the wealth” statement again. So let me get this straight, a State that makes extra money based on their local public safety entities and local consumers, have to pay for some other State’s solution — how will that work? What State legislator will bet his political career on that one? What will happen with the profit that the supported State makes? If FirstNet only has $7 Billion then that would mean the State taxpayers would have to flip the rest of the bill…right? I thought the FirstNet carrier model was a “pay nothing” plan for the governors? It may be just me, but am I getting the FirstNet carrier model wrong? Will the carriers come in and pay for their share? Are we stating that we will only get the funding from the federal level? Something just doesn’t add up.
“We need to ensure that any revenue that’s generated—particularly in highly dense, populated areas that will generate significant value for the excess capacity available—that that money is appropriately reinvested back into the network in a way … that benefits the entire nation,” FirstNet Acting Chief Counsel Jason Karp said during the last FirstNet board meeting. “We don’t want the national deployment to, in any way, suffer because a particularly rich state that is able to generate significant revenue because of that population density retains that revenue to create essentially a higher-quality radio access network in their state than we have in other localities around the country.”
The ability to “help support” other States is actually part of a State based P3 (in my model that is). In the model I have proposed, FirstNet would actually be an invested partner in all the State P3’s, thus generating revenue across the board to help, not only sustain the other States, but also for the completely sustain FirstNet itself. You notice that FirstNet’s comments still don’t address the rural areas? Who will help support those efforts? I’m assuming by “sharing the wealth” of the revenue generated by a “richer” State it will be shared for the purposes of supported the poorer states metropolitan areas…or rural…or both? I’m afraid that FirstNet may be trying to grasp hold of a large bull while treating it as if it were a lamb. Think smaller, more regional, think State based deployments.
“It’s critical that we are leveraging the high-density, high-revenue-generating areas in order to pay for the deployment nationally. We think that’s absolutely what Congress intended. We think that’s the intent of the act and what the act says, and we reiterate that conclusion [in the final legal interpretations].”
Too simplistic in thought process. You can’t just assume that revenue from high-density areas will be split up to pay for any thing. Revenue is just revenue. What we need to do is convert the revenue into capital budgets so that we can execute a programmatic framework of continued design-build and maintenance operations. How does FirstNet plan on administering construction-based budgets for multiple States and regions on their own?
I may be mistaken, but can someone point out to me where the Act states they are to use “high-density”, “high revenue generating” as a means to pay for the network? Maybe the intent of the Act was to help with “Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation”?  Or maybe this is just scope creep by FirstNet? In the portion related to the D-Block it states the use of “public private partnership”. My guess would be that congress intended the Act to create jobs by constructing a broadband network that can pay for itself and relieve the taxpayers by generating it’s own revenue. Nowhere in the Act does it say anything, or try to relay anything, where we give the spectrum to the carriers. If I got this right, I think the Act actually states that the D-Block spectrum is allocated to “Public Safety”, not commercial carriers? I may be wrong though.
There is one term used in the Act that needs to be highlighted — “public private partnership”. Anyone who has a construction background understands how P3s work. The framework is the same for constructing tunnels, railroads, or large dams.  They use P3s in these industries because of the large cost associated with its build and operations. It’s a well-known framework of how we model large builds in many of the other vertical industries. For the PSBN what we are missing is a clear business model as to why we want to build such a large program. All we have here is something I can’t explain. The simplistic definition is that FirstNet is just lining itself up for failure by giving the spectrum to the carriers. In a real P3 all partners are contributing equally to the deal, equally distribute its revenue, thus investing in its build-out and long-term operations. What is FirstNet’s plan?
“What is the risk for an opt-out state? The biggest factor is how much it costs a state or territory to build out, maintain and upgrade the network in its jurisdiction.”
With a State doing its own P3 the risk of cost associated with the build is moot because private investment is funding the entire solution. The FirstNet model has an enormous amount of risk, not only to the success of its deployment, and its long-term O&M, but it will also be a huge risk to the taxpayers and ultimately Public Safety. As it stands today FirstNet is a huge risk in itself. Over $200 Million spent so far with nothing but a possible partnership with a carrier. The real risk is on the remaining $6.8 Billion. At least with a state build-out we can contain the solution within its borders – can’t do that with the carrier model.
“The bad news for states is that no one has any idea how much it will cost to upgrade the network or when upgrades will happen. What we do know is that opt-out states will have to adhere to all of FirstNet’s network policies, no matter how often or when they may be altered.”
Can anyone tell me what FirstNet figures its nationwide solution will cost? How do they calculate a more efficient and less costly solution than a confined State deployment? Anyone who has been in the telecommunications industry for sometime understands the O&M typically runs 10-15% of the total capex program to build it. It’s a known calculation that if a network cost $1 Billion to build it, then it will cost roughly $100-$150 Million to run it — opex. A typical statewide build-out will run you around $1 Billion easily. If FirstNet’s capex solution is $100 Billion to construct; then it will cost roughly $10-$15 Billion a year to operate — opex. Where will that money come from? The fact remains that in no way is a nationwide deployment, under one RFP, can ever be more efficient, less complex, and less costly than a statewide deployment. You can’t paint the pants on the ants down in the grass from the roof of the house.  It may be just me, but I would be more concerned with the future impacts on FirstNet’s upgrades and enhancements than I would a statewide deployment. At least with a statewide deployment we have it confined – I think I said that already.
In a state based P3 model all the upgrades, enhancements, and redesigns are under the operational framework of the private entity that operates the network for the State. This means that the private entity is responsible for the all the upgrades and enhancements based on user demands, of which some of those users will be large entities, public safety and consumers. All boats rise with the tide on these rollouts. Once again it is confined to a state jurisdiction, thus much easier to manage and maintain. It is expected that FirstNet script all standards and initial demands for constructability. Based on those standards the State, and its private broadband entity, will have something to design, build and operate against.
To conclude, I found Mr. Jackson’s article, and quotes, to be very informative of how FirstNet is thinking…and it doesn’t look good for them. But, I’m….

Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet — Sabotage of a Nations Economic Boom?

/ drmikemyers / 1 Comment
You know what the worst thing is about FirstNet jumping ship and joining the carriers? The fact that FirstNet, and the carriers, will have squandered the perfect opportunity for themselves to create and entire market place that would drive the next big economic push for FirstNet, the States, the carriers and the entire Nation. To me this is just criminal — an act of sabotage on the nation.  
By allowing the States to build, and benefit from, their own statewide implementation of a Public Private Partnership (P3), will drive an economic boost for the local telecom markets that hasn’t been seen since the creation of the Bells. The boom will create great long-standing opportunities with a bi-product of putting a lot of local people to work, while at the same time opening up a great investment market place. By FirstNet denying the States the opportunity they will have lavished a great break in boosting the economy, while at the same time factually creating a huge wedge in execution between the States and the Federal Government – once again — initiating one of the greatest blame games ever.  

The opportunity we are facing is teetering on the edge of governmental disappointment and failure once again. When will these actions cease? By enabling the States to build their own P3 will enable the State, and the President, to actually accomplish something greater than anything we could imagine.  If anything FirstNet is doing a great injustice to the Nation and should be investigated for its decisions.  
Even if FirstNet were to deploy their solution in just one State, they would have stolen an economic boost that is more needed at the State level than the Federal level. It may be just me, but in essence FirstNet, and the carrier partner(s), would be conducting the second greatest theft of the Nation – the first being China. By pushing to do one national build-out will only benefit the commercial carriers to create more revenue for their own confers — none of which would go to the States. We have to remember, the carriers have already sunk the cost of having a standing operations for broadband service, this partnership will only allow them to reap the economies of scale by using existing platforms to foster more service offerings to their real customer base – you and I — not Public Safety.  
The carriers see numbers, not social issues such as Public Safety. The carrier’s only requirement is to the shareholders and the bottom line. All FirstNet will do is pump-up the traditional carriers so that the carriers can benefit from the reduced overheads, thus more profit for its shareholders and access to the best spectrum on the planet without spending a dime. How do I know this? Well, because I‘ve been supporting the carrier business model for many years, and still do. The carrier model works, and is very profitable, but its not based on building an entire infrastructure just so Public Safety can be first. No matter how good the message sounds, or politically tied it is, the responsibility of the carrier is to its shareholders, not the Government.  
In actuality, if I were advising a carrier, I would say stay away from FirstNet — far away. By going after FirstNet’s RFP the carrier will have put itself one step closer to nationalizing their assets — which can be good and bad. The carrier will win either way.  The carrier can sit on the sidelines, wait for the political landscape to deteriorate, then FirstNet will come begging for help and thus giving away the bandwagon — for free. Or, the States will commission their own P3s, construct the network, take over all the assets with private investments, so that the commercial carrier can totally depart from owning the margin–eating assets and focus purely on content and service delivery.  I don’t even think FirstNet understands the depth of the maneuvering they’ve gotten themselves into. In fact, I know they have no idea, except maybe those on the board with carrier experience, but why would they say anything? After all, the carrier model is the only model these board members and leaders within FirstNet understand.   
To be frank (like I haven’t been all along) FirstNet is taking advantage of the States. FirstNet understands that many States lack the knowledge to know they are being taken to the cleaners. FirstNet uses that knowledge to its advantage by pushing their solution onto the State knowing that they will do a deal with the devil of the carrier machine. 

In the end, you can’t blame the carriers, they are doing what they do best, defend and fight off competition in their own turf.  In actuality, it is a masterful play and also a deplorable view of greed and demonstrates how the carriers are always laser focused on conquering all the bandwidth they can garner just so they can make more money. In this case they will have gotten access to the most valuable spectrum on the planet – for free. Like I said, that is what the carriers do, if you understand this, then you will know that the flags of insider blocking and trading has been going on since the appointment of senior carrier executives to the FirstNet Board and the 400 page business plan that never existing.  
The D-Block was never going to go to Public Safety, no matter what the law states.  There is a faction  within the highest ranks of the federal government and commercial industries that have been insuring this from the start. It was a ride from the beginning, and as I stated more than a year ago, the only way out is with a State Governor opting to build it themselves. You see the spectrum doesn’t garner as much revenue if the whole pie is not put together, but then again its obvious that the leadership never really gave a damn about the law they knew they could change it along the way, but what do I know, I’m….. 
Just some guy and a blog….. 

Firstnet wants to sell you what you already have, but they want to charge you more and give you less! What a deal!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
So let me get this straight, FirstNet’s answer to the PSBN is going to be an MVNO (Managed Virtual Network Operation) with a carrier? What that means is that FirstNet is going to become another Straighttalk or Simpletalk. These types of providers actually have no infrastructure, they lease the space on a large carriers network and ride piggyback on their footprint providing competing services to the carrier. In this case the commercial carriers will suck up the D-Block spectrum for free and administer FirstNet’s service through the additional spectrum. The fact remains the same that FirstNet will still ride the commercialized infrastructure (towers, backhaul, etc..) of the carriers. Plus, the FirstNet will only cover the major metropolitan areas, because that’s where the carriers are.
The real issue here is that Public Safety will still be on the commercial carriers network; the same network that has issues of rendering prioritization and resiliency to Public Safety when a catastrophe happens, i.e. earthquake, hurricane or tornado. Wasn’t that the whole reason for allocating the D-Block to Public Safety was so that Public Safety could build their own dedicated, hardened, network? To add to that the commercial carriers only cover 42% of the landmass in the US, that being major revenue producing metropolitan areas. What do we do about the remaining 58%?
Supposedly FirstNet will partner with rural telecom providers. If you thought the commercial standards for deploying cell phone service, with the major carriers, was bad, wait until you have to interface with the local or regional carriers. Which by the way even the local and regional carriers utilize the same infrastructure as the carriers. For the real rural areas the local or regional carriers are actually operated and owned by the utilities. In some cases you can have a lone wolf of a local carrier running service in the far reaches of open space, but they are extremely constrained in what they can offer and the age of their gear is not up to par…cost too much for these smaller guys. Plus, most of them are family owned as well — so much for the rural experiment for FirstNet.
On top of the issues with riding the infrastructure of a commercial carrier, how does FirstNet plan to sell such services, prioritized and hardened? It may be just me, but don’t the States already get such service from the commercial carriers today? Why would a State want to purchase broadband service from FirstNet when it will be more expensive, less reliable, and lacks the geographic footprint they already have? Imagine the negotiations between a State and FirstNet?
FirstNet: Ok, here is some broadband service that will cost you $100 a month. We utilize the same carriers infrastructure that you are already using. We also have this real nice operational solution to insure your service is prioritized, although we are still on the carrier’s infrastructure, so if a storm comes we may lose service. But, it’s the same type of service you’re already getting today, so it shouldn’t impact you too much. And by the way, you get to buy this really expensive handset that go can go under water and talk with a lot of people for $1500 dollars, no returns, sorry. But it’s the same type of service you get on your personal cell phone today, so at least you will know how to make calls and receive pictures.
State: What? I get my service today for less than $20 and my phones are only $50. I know the service I have today is spotty and goes down a lot, but that’s why I have my LMR radio, plus I have more apps available with my personal phone than this brick you have. Why would I change what I got today just to pay you more, buy more expensive handsets, stay on the same network I’m already on, and not even beat the reliability I need that I’m already getting?
All FirstNet is doing is adding another layer of bureaucracy by installing an operational element just above the carrier and just below Public Safety. Don’t’ let them fool you, FirstNet will never be able to prioritize their traffic over the carrier’s revenue producing consumers. That would be a dumb mistake by the carrier. Nothing better than taking out thousands of dollars a second just so the Police can send some video. In fact, if this is the plan why do we need them at all? Most of the States and Agencies already get such service from the same carriers today. These are the same carriers that FirstNet wants to do a deal with in their partnership. The main reason the States and Public Safety want to get rid of the carriers is because of the priority and the hardening aspects.  There is no getting around the issue. The whole deal is setting up is turning out to be a disaster. There is a solution though!
FirstNet, just set yourself up as the operational element for the national topology of the Public Safety Broadband Network. Let the States build out their own networks utilizing a standard you create and a framework of a Public Private Partnership (P3) to execute on. As part of that P3 just state you get 5% of the revenue to help sustain your portion of the network.  Then let the States reinvest their portion of the P3 back into their own portion of the network and allow the private investors to garner revenue from the Priority 2 and 3 users. You keep the $7 Billion as part of your national footprint needs. States won’t need it because Private Investment will pay for it. In this scenario you can give broadband service to the Public Safety for free and still grant them priority 1 service. It really is that simple, especially to a guy who has been building these networks for more than 20 years.
But who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet says they can make money off the PSBN, but the State can’t? Of course the State can use its own revenue! Allow me to explain…

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Have you ever had a time when you know someone is wrong, but there’s no chance in changing his or her mind no matter what you try? It’s like watching them stumble while desperately trying to maintain and upward stance of control yet everything is falling down around them? You told them not to drink half that bottle of whiskey, but they insist they can hold their liquor. That’s exactly what I’m seeing with FirstNet. They keep drinking their own liquor and every swig along the way only convinces them more in believing their own delusional mindset. Here we stand just waiting for them to just lose their balance and go crashing through a plate glass window, down 4 flights of stairs surrounded by a group of Governors just watching them fall. The power of personalities and influential know-it-alls has reached a point of no return.
There are those within FirstNet, although a valiant effort, are failing to see beyond their only limitations. As I have stated from the very beginning, the solution FirstNet is advertisingwill not work, that being the carrier supported national model, but I’m helpless in lending a hand and helpless in penetrating those thick personalities who are convinced they have all the right answers. Letting them fall is the only option now. The good thing is that the “Opt Out” States really don’t need FirstNet to get their Public Safety Broadband up and running. FirstNet needs the States more than the States need them. It’s a hard fact to accept when FirstNet fails to see beyond its own delusion of an idea that will fail no matter how far you get along in its implementation. Unfortunately, the drunk must learn a lesson.
FirstNet was doomed once Sam Ginn announced they already had a plan and were working with the carriers to come up with a solution. At that point in time they had already convinced themselves that they had all the answers they needed. Everything since then, and up to know, has just been a waste of time and money.
In a recent Urgent article by Donny Jackson entitled “FirstNet says opt-out states must share revenues, meet nationwide network policies“ he quoted a couple of FirstNet representatives. Just one thing before I show you the quote; would anyone ask a lawyer to build you a house? Why would we ask one to build us a network? Anyway…
“Some state officials have been intrigued by the opt-out alternative almost from the moment that FirstNet was established, with a few initially expressing a desire to have revenue generated from the network help address general state-budget shortfalls. FirstNet officials quickly noted that the law requires all revenues must be reinvested into the FirstNet system, but a legal question remained: Could an opt-out state keep all revenues generated by the RAN it built within the state to deploy a network with greater performance or reduce the subscription costs to public safety?  
The answer is “No,” according to the resolution approved by the FirstNet board last Friday. FirstNet Acting Chief Counsel Jason Karp noted that opt-out states would benefit from the use of 20 MHz of 700 MHz broadband spectrum that is licensed to FirstNet, which is mandated to build out a nationwide broadband network for public safety.
“We need to ensure that any revenue that’s generated—particularly in highly dense, populated areas that will generate significant value for the excess capacity available—that that money is appropriately reinvested back into the network in a way … that benefits the entire nation,” Karp said during the meeting. “We don’t want the national deployment to, in any way, suffer because a particularly rich state that is able to generate significant revenue because of that population density retains that revenue to create essentially a higher-quality radio access network in their state than we have in other localities around the country.”
I’m sorry, but I have a few issues with these statements. First, the law States that the revenue generated by the State must be reinvested back into the network. That is true, but nowhere does it say anything about the people. The network is being created as Public Safety being the Priority. To add, the law states that the use of Public Private Partnerships can be utilized and thus commission commercialized services on a non-priority basis giving Public Safety the primary role. Any Public Private Partnership (P3) created will have an ownership stake for invested parties. The FirstNetBoard even said themselves that they were looking to give a majority share of“63%” to a commercial carrier partner.
So, if I get this right, it’s okay for FirstNet to setup a P3 and utilize the investment revenue for itself and its partners, but the States can’t? Something just doesn’t seem right with that, then again it may be just me. Why would FirstNet be allowed to give away 63% of anything? The network, and the spectrum, was allocated to Public Safety – not FirstNet. FirstNet wasn’t even created until after the law was enacted, and even then it took them a year to get the FirstNet Board even going. Remember all that talk about having a 15-member board, but no organization to operate under its direction? FirstNet was not mandated to build the network, the 15-member board was, plus the spectrum was not allocated to FirstNet — especially when it didn’t even exist yet — it was allocated to Public Safety that was represented by the Public Safety lobbying committee long before the board was even a thought.
The law, as written and signed by the President, was in fact scribed before FirstNet ever came into existence. What I’m confused about is when did FirstNet take over the entire spectrum, and who said they could do anything to the spectrum without the okay of Public Safety? I may be missing something here, but isn’t the majority of Public Safety driven at a State and local level, not some newly created NTIA organization? From what I recall, FirstNet was created to organize the creation of the network as to support Public Safety’s needs; in essence FirstNet was created to help develop the solution for Public Safety – not the other way around. From what I understand, and I may be wrong, but nowhere along the way was FirstNet ever given all the assets to build what they wanted. The spectrum has always been allocated to Public Safety — thus the State. If anything, FirstNet should be reporting to a 15-member board under the direction of the Board of Governors instead of what they have going on now.
If a State, or States, decides that they want to do their own P3 arrangement, and grant ownership shares to their own private investors, then the State must reinvest their own share back into the needs of the network. The law says nothing about the share of the private investment side. If the law stated that a State had to reinvest all of their revenue, then why would FirstNet approve a vote to relinquish “63%” of its partnership, thus revenue, to third parties? If it were true then, by law, FirstNet has to dedicate all its revenue to the network as well – that means no money for its partners, thus no investors. Catch 22 going on here.
Jeff Johnson is a great guy, but the following statement is awkward.
“We are building this nationwide network for public safety, and that doesn’t mean seven of 56 states, territories and commonwealths—it means all 56,” Johnson said. “That means we’re going to have to take resources from areas that produce more, and share them in the places don’t produce enough.”

First off that statement sounds kind of socialistic. Brings back memories of someone saying, “share the wealth”. I know what Mr. Johnson is trying to say is that the reinvested money, the portion that goes to the “Public” side of the Public Private Partnership, will be rendered for the “self-sustainment” clause within the Act, thus the “entire” network. I understand that, but I have a better thought. What if FirstNet were to stipulate that it has to take 5% ownership of all the State P3’s, thus enabling them a long-term committed revenue stream to support national public safety programs? That would make a hell of a lot more money for FirstNet then giving away the farm to the commercial carriers. Plus, any State that Opts-Out has to abide by the standards of technicalities as listed by FirstNet, i.e. physical network design characteristics, approved vendors, etc..  FirstNet would also be in the position to script a framework for consideration that the State can utilize to execute its own Public Private Partnership. Within that framework FirstNet could state its requirement for a 5% ownership stake, thus its revenue equivalent that would go back to FirstNet as a way to help support the needed Public Safety programs for those States that lack their own funding. Sounds a lot better if you ask me.
Laws can be written or modified to insure the “Public’s” side of the P3 arrangement is committed to Public Safety. We have to remember that Public Safety is essentially a local element — anything else is a nationalistic police force. The law does state the revenue generated by the State (the State’s portion of ownership) has to go back into the network, thus allowing the State to generate self-sustainment to maintain its long-term operations and maintenance of its own solution, where as 5% of their stake would go back to FirstNet to accommodate the Nation’s needs as well. If FirstNet wants to “share the wealth”, then by all means go ahead and share your 5%. Just remember, the State Governors are the ones that define their own State’s Public Safety.
But whom am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet sells out: Lack of knowledge and the chaos of lobbying has pushed the D-Block into the hands of the commercial carriers. Can I say I told you so?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

FirstNet has chosen their business model. Their model is to partner with a carrier to go for a nationwide deployment of Public Safety Broadband. I told you so! Once again FirstNet misses the boat and sides with lobbying from the carriers. Ever since the 400 page business model, that didn’t exist, hit the press it was known what FirstNet was going to do. How they will fail in so many ways is unheard of.

Let’s say they get their network built with a commercial carrier, it will totally defeat the entire purpose of Public Safety Broadband. The entire cause for pulling back the D-Block spectrum back from its original auction to the carriers, almost 10 years ago, was mainly because we could not count on the commercial carriers infrastructure to operate during times of emergencies, i.e. hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes. All FirstNet has done is what it set out to do since the beginning, get the spectrum into the hands of the commercial carriers. Plus, it will fall dramatically short in its original plan for complete coverage of the United States. In fact by partnering with the commercial carriers will only insure that the carriers gets premium spectrum to expand their own services within 42% of the geographic metropolitan coverage areas, while the taxpayer flips the bill to harden the commercial carriers networks – what a deal!

First, you auction off the most valuable spectrum on the planet to the commercial market? The carriers offer up over $10 Billion for it? Then you have a change of heart and pull it back because the commercial carriers can’t keep their own networks up during an emergency? Then you give the spectrum to Public Safety so that they can build their own, protected and hardened, network specifically for Public Safety? Then our Federal Government has a major flip-flop event and gives the spectrum back to the carriers for free? Only in this case the taxpayer now pays for the commercial carriers infrastructure updates via a nationwide RFP? Man I wish I had that kind of deal! Can someone tell me who is in charge here, because I know its not FirstNet. FirstNet, has the board, made up of a majority of non-telecom people, have been easily influenced by those that say they are the experts in delivering the network? How asinine can this get?

The only people that will prosper from this deal will be the carriers. Public Safety once again can’t get its act together. As I stated more than 2 years ago, after the 400 page fiasco, FirstNet has been sold on the notion that they can’t build anything without the carriers help. The fact is the carriers don’t even build their own networks, plus they don’t even own their own towers anymore (ref AT&T and Verizon’s sales of tower assets). What good will this partnership garner? FirstNet’s plan is going to fail miserably, or it will be lost to the political chaos of how the Federal Government typically works. What a total waste of money — and spectrum. As long as FirstNet keeps its course, I’m afraid the solution is a total loss. There is only one way out of this entire mess – the State Governor.

Everyone should read about Pennsylvania’s plan on how it wants to build its network; that is the closest effort to success so far. Just so you know, their solution is in-direct conflict with FirstNet’s plan. Who will win in the end? Who will lose? The winners will not be the taxpayer and it won’t be Public Safety. Public Safety….Governor…..are you going to let the Federal Government come in and build a network with the carriers who have everything to gain using your land, your taxpayer money, and not share in any of the profit? Or will you take control of your own use of the spectrum and create your own model that will enable your ability to create jobs, lower taxes, and reap the benefits of revenue? Even the Commonwealth of Kentucky has initiated its first step of building the backbone that will let the wireless broadband ride upon, and its using my Public Private Partnership model (although stolen acquired by Macquarie). Will Kentucky allow the Federal Government come in with its carrier partner to force the others out, all while giving them free access to your newly created fiber network? The FirstNet plan does none of this for you and in fact will only be setup for the commercial carriers to win. Let’s get ready for the fight.  

Also, FirstNet stated they will work with the rural carriers as well. Only problem there is these rural carriers are in the metropolitan areas as well. Will FirstNet give authority for the commercial carrier to control on that turf as well? Plus, the rural carriers only cover the small towns and cities. Nobody in the telco space provides services to the rest of the 60% of the geographic landmass of the US. Why? Because it costs too much for them to make a profit. So, instead of the commercial carrier not willing to lose their own money on the plan, FirstNet decides to step in and have the taxpayer pay for the carriers deficiencies?  As I stated before, the carriers will now be able to access the rural markets, sell commercial services to the rural areas, all while not spending a dime of their own money to build it, nor a dime to acquire the valuable spectrum they once offered more than $10 Billion for. Instead the taxpayer will pay for it? Somebody just got taken! That someone is all of us. If I were a carrier I would be having the biggest party ever! As an entrepeneur, that was a great play by the carriers. FirstNet — I think the term is called rope-a-dope.

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog……

FirstNet: Motorola making a SMART move. Could be the game changer they need – they could take over all control of FirstNet!!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Motorola buying Airwave may be the smartest move yet and the solution they were looking for. This has many points of positive moves. The primary being their move into Managed Services where as they could maintain, manage and operate public safety broadband networks. Another reason is a foothold in the UK, thus Europe, by pushing LMR over Tetra products (that will be a tough sell though). Plus, they got it at cheap price, given Macquarie just bought Airwave back in 2007 for $3.8 Billion – that’s quite a loss on their investment. But Macquarie seems to be lacking in the SMART area when it comes to technology investments.I believe it is a direct result of who is at the helm in making the decisions for them. But hey you can’t win them all. About the smartest thing Macquarie has done is plagiarize acquire my P3 info to invest in Kentucky.

Motorola’s acquisition of Airwave will enable it to establish managed service contracts between the UK,Canada and the US, thus being the first to consolidate a national capability of operating FirstNet. I guess Motorola will be bidding on whatever FirstNet RFP is advertised then. That’s how Motorola usually does it anyway; go for the bid, even if it’s a bad RFP, win it, then negotiate terms and conditions at the same time changing the RFP in the process. It wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last – check out the history of LA-RICS. Although it seems to be kind of “under the table” type deals, it’s business (with my Bronx tone). Although, Motorola hasn’t been doing very well lately, when it comes to this philosophy leads me to believe that Motorola has only been doing this out of desperation. Regardless this acquisition could be the maneuvering that Motorola needs to insure its future as the market leader once the Public Safety Broadband Network gets underway, and it will get underway. Motorola has some very good relationships that go deep within the Public Safety space; it would take an act of God, or a major dissolution of Motorola, to get rid of that “good o’boy network”.

Motorola is in fact putting itself into a very smart position; even if they may not fully understand what they have done. Operating and managing the Public Safety Control Center piece allows Motorola to be the only one in the space; or at least the only one that can proclaim its individuality in the space. After all, control and operations of the Public Safety Broadband Network will be the gateway into the Applications layer of the broadband services, i.e. NG-911, Utility infrastructures, Transportation and many others. He who control’s the broadband layers – controls the market. Seems that this would be a great “in” for players like HP, IBM and even Honeywell (if they are still around).

How will controlling the network operations enable Motorola to be best positioned for controlling all of FirstNet? Simple, the control plain of the network will be based on connectivity within the DWDM (Dense Wave Division) layer, or layer 2, inter-connecting all the statewide networks, thus wireless broadband tower infrastructures. Gigabit Ethernet will be transported via wavelengths (Lambdas) one layer up. Those Lamdas will be the fiber and virtual network connectivity for all those that ride on the network – to include the entire wireless broadband portion. The controlling entity of the core backbone in the transport layer needs to maintain, track and provide access for all entities that need to access the network – this is where Motorola is positioning itself. Once again, Motorola may not even know what they are doing here and it could just be a fluke.

The scary thing is that Motorola has never operated as an ISP (Internet Service Provider) before, such as XO, or Level 3, etc.. Doing nationwide network management, using umbrella management solutions, is not the same as LMR; add on top of that the controlling fabric of the wireless layer – that being the backhaul and RAN solutions – makes it even more convoluted as to what Motorola would need to do. My gut feeling is that they may never be able to take on the work they are buying into. But, it’s a smart move and one that I would engage as well. Could make them a big force in the communications market again (beyond just handsets). Makes the SWOT analysis of the entire acquisition quite appetizing. Then again they could be just making a play to replace Tetra as well.

But whom am I other than…

 just some guy and a blog…