Month: January 2016

FirstNet — RFP falls far short of intention. Why did it take so long to put out an "objectives based" RFP?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
There are some key questions that need to be asked of FirstNet; of which I’m putting the questions together in their advertised template and sending them to the Authority. Can anyone tell me why it took 4 years to put out an “objectives based RFP”? Why all the legal jargon and position in the RFP as well? If its objectives based then how would anyone think they know what will be in any contract, especially when it hasn’t been defined yet? This whole RFP could have been half the amount of fluff. But then again we have a lot of people that need to stay employed and do the busy work. The fact is the terms and conditions that are constructed following the awarded proposal is the only thing that will really count. Putting together objectives can be outlined and fought over in about three months even with such a large program. In actuality, the simpler the objectives the easier it will be to communicate to everyone what you need. Why four years?  
I congratulate FirstNet on realizing that they can’t do this without the use of a Public Private Partnership (P3). I mean it was only written in the law. I took on great personal pain to get the idea of a P3 incorporated into the overall strategy. You wouldn’t believe all the naysayers out there that said the Federal Government would never do a Public Private Partnership. I have to thank them though, because to me naysayers are the propellant to my fire. There was a great deal of lobbying by many people and organizations trying to influence their own plans onto FirstNet, but reality and commonsense will seep in after awhile, especially with so much chaos going on. It’s a wonder FirstNet was able to get this far with all that attention. There will be issues though.
The RFP, as written, essentially only generates more questions. The lack of knowledge of how to construct the P3, or what it should look like, specifically for telecom, or what type of financial arrangement is required, will become a big issue. The over abundance of information and unclear objectives will only confuse eventual respondents who will ultimately see the complexity and just resort to “just put in a proposal and work on the terms and conditions later” mentality – which always seems to work out…right? Alternatively, as written, the RFP will only attract some very complex business models that will be all over the map further camouflaging the right solution.
Little side note: It’s not like I didn’t offer my assistance, but as I said a long time ago, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.
You can have all the Harvard Grads in the world tell you what a P3 is and how it needs to be designed; but if you don’t understand how telecoms works; or how the market plays out; our how the networks are designed and built; or how the relationships are established; I’m afraid it will be a big waste of time. But we have what we have, so lets go along with it.
First, let me put this into perspective: FirstNet’s RFP is for an overarching solution to build, operate and maintain the national CORE solution for the LTE fabric – not the State’s build-out.  This RFP will come from the top-down and will become overly complex interconnecting and integrating multiple state solutions. Be warned! For those States that decide to Opt-In this RFP would allow their partner (awardee) to build-out the RAN in those States. Some RAN may exist through carrier towers, some existing tower owners, but most will have to be greenfield towers – due to the requirement to cover the rural areas — where the carriers do not currently have any towers – plus the hardening demands.
Hardening will be a very big issue. Current towers are not designed for the hardening that will be required, so cost analysis justifications will go through the roof adding time, people and cost.
Just remember if you let them come in and build it, then you have to accept whatever terms of the deal they make; meaning you will have no say and you will have no access to potential revenue within the State or how the network will be built – even after they placate you with all the kumbaya. The only thing you will actually get is a new monthly type of service of broadband access, much like you already have, but in this case it will be from a modified existing provider, not your typical AT&T or Verizon. The resulting solution will fall short leaving you with required taxpayer funding — not including any federal taxpayer support required.
For those States that Opt-Out you will have full access to create your own P3, which has many benefits most specifically the ability for the State to build, operate, and maintain a fully paid solution with private equity that will create a broadband company within the State. In short, you will become a part owner of this new broadband company, thus will be the recipient of revenue, although your share of the revenue has to be re-invested back into the Public Safety Broadband Network to cover public safety needs (to be defined by the Governor). The remaining owners get to NET the remaining revenue for themselves.
The amazing thing is that you actually don’t have to bring any cash whatsoever to the deal, because you will bring the assets – access to existing facilities, land, right of way and most importantly…spectrum. Essentially this brings equilibrium to the P3 deal.
The best thing about this deal is that you will have full control and access for prioritized public safety broadband to First Responders – at the local level – and you will be fully compliant (actually better aligned) with the FirstNet’s Public Private Partnership and their approved technical platforms if they get their solution together. It still needs to be decided if, and/or, how FirstNet will participate. My recommendation is that FirstNet gets a small percentage of ownership of each State based P3 to produce revenue in support of the national footprint, thus outfitting those State’s that decide not to build it themselves and providing the national solution with “self-sustainment”. This is what I would call welfare for Public Safety Broadband.
After reviewing the entire Request For Proposal (RFP) I think the most important shortcoming for FirstNet will be its lack of understanding of the Partnership and how it needs to utilize with the Private side of the P3. For example: a P3 equates ownership with investment and/or resources. In this case FirstNet doesn’t bring anything to the table as it relates to assets. The only power it has on the deal is what is granted to them by the Opt-In States. Being that there will be a lot of States that Opt-Out FirstNet’s national solution will have a hard climb to success. Almost all, if not all, the assets will come from the State. FirstNet is offering up $6.75 Billion of taxpayer money into the partnership — although very attractive falls drastically short of the 100 Billion it will really cost — it kind of goes against the original intent of “The Middle Class TAX RELIEF and Jobs Creation Act of 2012”, but who cares…right? If the investment made by FirstNet is less than 7% ownership stake that would mean they will fall drastically short of any type of majority ownership, thus forcing FirstNet into a government-funded solution in the end. If that’s the case why not just let Home Land Defense operate the national platform — why a private partnership? If FirstNet can’t establish enough revenue to attract private investors all of this will be moot anyway. 
Another issue is that FirstNet believes it owns the D-Block spectrum, which is specifically stated in the law that it belongs to the Public Safety industry, which ultimately means the State.  FirstNet was created to act as the liaison between all the States under the direction of Public Safety to establish the Public Safety Broadband Network. FirstNet was never given the spectrum for their own use. How will this be addressed in any P3 model put forth by FirstNet? After all operating any wireless ether will physically reside locally. I’ve never seen, in my more than 25 years in the industry, any wireless platform specifically owned by the Federal Government except the military — which definitely has their own spectrum.
Another thing to mention is that the “Partner” will actually be a consortium of private investment companies. A large carrier may be part of that investment team, but I can guarantee you they won’t take on all the risk and devote so much cash on their own. With that said, you need to keep in mind that a “Private Investment PARTNER” is only in the deal to bring the cash with an expected return and exit strategy. The “Partner” will therefore want a lot of protection against its investment – to include control over his/her money. FirstNet and the consortium of Private Investors have to outline – contractually – who gets what when it comes to amount of ownership shares; return on revenue; and ultimately who the majority shareholder is. The majority shareholder will be the one in charge, which will not be the United States Government, else why fashion FirstNet as a “privatized” solution to build the network? Just have DHS run the national CORE solution and let the States run their own P3s. For any majority shareholder without the control of its majority share, whomever that may be, will not just sanely give their money over for the cause – that I can guarantee you. Would you?
Majority shareholders tend to be very shortsighted and will hound you for a quick return. I’ve witness some pretty insightful board meetings where the majority shareholders were presented numbers and I can tell you that most were not just complacent mom and pop investors and those meetings tended to be very….colorful. There are a few that don’t mind sticking with the opportunity for sometime, but all will be laser focused on their share of the investment. FirstNet needs to decide how it is going to handle this — they haven’t even started — and it definitely is not addressed in the RFP. If this does not get ironed out now, then the FirstNet initiative will be a disaster before it even gets off the ground. Or was it proof that it has been a disaster before it even got off the ground?
The best part about this whole thing is that an Opt-Out State need not be concerned about the FirstNet plan, because a State can design, build, operate and maintain its own P3 created private entity to run its Public Safety Broadband Network without FirstNet’s involvement. It would be nice for FirstNet to provide some interconnect, interoperable and hardened standards to build against, but in reality this isn’t a red flag for a State’s effort. It’s not rocket science to get the standards established themselves, especially given that we only have two, or three, equipment providers who have all worked together in the past. Plus, I would think a State would feel better about putting its own standards together anyway. The technical solution is not the issue, as I have said from the beginning, the issue will be the partnering arrangement, but who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet — Someone was listening? In reality there is no other course that will make this a success.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
So if the terms and conditions for FirstNet describe a 20-25 year contract/partnership, then someone has been listening to my recommendations.
The scope of the RFP will have to be focused on the high level aspects of building the management of the CORE. Don’t focus on the build part; only focus on the builds that pertain to States that Opt-In. I would only recommend the awardee act in a program management capacity or investment oversight. Unless FirstNet initiates the discussion with the States to coordinate requirements for hardening, approved vendors and contractual obligations, i.e. P3 ownership and shareholder representation, then the awarded partner will fail when trying to build it themselves. Ownership of the statewide buildout belongs to the State. FirstNet, nor its partner, will be able to control State ownership unless the state gives up all their spectrum and control of the entity created within the State. I can see a few of the economically weaker, or more politically tied states (someone like Hawaii) that will dedicate themselves to FirstNet – at least for a little while anyway.
The issue for moving forward with the “Opt-in” states first is that there will not be enough revenue generated that justifies a full statewide build-out. On average you will see a statewide build-out, covering the rural areas as well as metro environments, will carry a capital cost of roughly $1 Billion per State — not to mention the outlying Big States that will cost roughly 3 times that. FirstNet will need use the $7 Billion it acquired to cover its operations level that will need to include facilities, datacenters, NOCs and other sites in support of the national CORE layout. We haven’t even begun to talk about the long-term O&M (Operations and Maintenance) costs. Without enough revenue then FirstNet will not attract private money to invest. Without a return on the investment partners will be far and few.
Revenue generation will have to come from the States. Even if you look at the carrier model all revenue is generated at the local level; after all that is where you and I live and that is where we pay our bills so that is where the carriers focus the marketing campaigns. What’s sold in Texas may not be the same in Vermont.
So lets say FirstNet moves forward before the States do. What do you think will happen — even if they get a great investment consortium? How do you justify or analyze cost estimates if you haven’t even established a relationship with the State you want to build in? For an Opt-Out State what percentage of the State based P3 will you get? How much money will you devote to the deal? Taken a percentage just to cover First Responder costs at the Federal nationalistic level will be quite small. What will the terms and conditions of that deal look like? Who will control that deal? What if the State doesn’t want FirstNet involved at all? What will the legal obligations be? A State doesn’t need anything from the Feds to build their own network and host their own P3 — FirstNet needs the State though. If FirstNet just goes hands-off with Opt-Out States then there overall mission will fail.
With the three tiered Priority of service model I just described, there will be enough revenue generated to spark the interest of big investors, all done up in a nice and tidy little State based package – none of this multi-State cluster scenarios. Just like the partners, FirstNet can NET revenue to help pay for its efforts at the local level.
There will be States that want to build it themselves no matter what FirstNet brings to the table, especially in today’s political charged world. If FirstNet wants to stay involved with these Opt-Out States, then they should outline the requirements the State can follow to construct and stake some ownership (all P3s operate under ownership and risk diversification) in the states P3. The awarded FirstNet partner can act as their facilitator, but a state’s P3 is a completely separate contract — not under the control of FirstNet. If FirstNet doesn’t address the Opt-Out solution first then they will have cut the arm off that feeds them.
One more thing…the framework of classifying users of the network must be allocated to three priority levels — not two. Priority one being First Responders (Police, Fire, and EMS); Priority two being state based organizations and companies that are essential to supporting catastrophic situations (Utilities, Transportation, etc…); and Priority 3 belonging to commercial traffic. Priority two and three will be the revenue generating solutions; Priority 1 will be the recipient of the P3 deal – thus paying for First Responders. I can think of more than a 100 different service offerings that can be developed for the Priority 2 and 3 users. I can also envision a number of customers that I know FirstNet has not even thought of yet.
Okay, two more things. There shouldn’t be just one partner; FirstNet should seek a Consortium of Partners. Why you ask? A Consortium spreads the risk of the partners and allows FirstNet not to put all their eggs in one basket; plus most of the investors (private equity) will want an exit strategy.  This allows for interchangeable partners in the deal over the life of the ownership model.
But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet – Take a lesson from Donald Trump…Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Have you been wondering why Donald Trump is doing so well in all the polls? There’s a lesson here for FirstNet – everyone actually.
Mr Trump is not a politician and doesn’t follow the traditional way of how politics is run. He goes right for the juggler when he notices something that he feels is just asinine. How can he do this? Its quite simply, he is educated, experienced and knowledgeable about how things can be fixed in the country without being held back by any political message and political alignment – he simply doesn’t care about the political way of doing business and avoids it like the plague. He sees the political machine as the primary reason we’re facing the issues we have in the country today. In essence, he says it like he sees it. He administers a solution without the restrictions of politics. It really is that simple.
FirstNet is in itself one of those fostered government solutions by the same political quagmire. I’m not saying that there aren’t some good people trying to do some good things, but in short, these people are so deeply entrenched into the political landscape that they can’t see a way out of their situation – they have become that beaten, shivering, wet dog in the corner. If anybody talks to loudly, they start to scour the impact of retribution. My advice, take a Trump moment and forget about all the political players, organizations and solutions that mandate how you need to do business. I’ve said this before, forget about the politics and act like an entrepreneur. Don’t be worried about what people think, or what they might say and do, just do what you know is right. Stop worrying about trying to appease everyone and just focus on a solution that will work. Listen to your experts (like me) and make it simplistic – why overcomplicate things – its really not rocket science. Maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate the people you have around you.
As you may have noticed, since the beginning of my blog, I’m a take no prisoner kind of guy. If I know and see the solution that needs to be had, then I will let you know – I will let everyone know. I’m not afraid of what people might think. I spent 10 years developing a solution that FirstNet can use to build the entire Public Safety Broadband Network – a solution I know will work – a fully funded and beneficial solution for all. But do I get any kudos or reciprocity in the solution? Nope, all I get is silence. This has been FirstNet’s problem since the beginning. FirstNet is so focused on a carrier solution they can’t get away from it now. What better way for me to breakdown the walls of communications than being blatant in my writings — somebody has to be listening. I’m a Trumpster in my own way — which by the way I was doing long before Donald Trump starting running for the Presidency. 
The fact of the matter is that FirstNet will have a difficult ride going forward. If I were running the show we would have been long along our way in building this network. But, due to the players being hammered by the political machine, we have wasted three years since the signing of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012. How many people could have been saved during that time? How many police actions would have been tracked and managed on a scale of interoperability never seen before? How many lives would have been saved? While FirstNet was out listening to the world and catering to the carriers, we lost precious time, time we can never get back. A saying comes to mind “lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way”. The fact is I, personally, have been evangelizing a solution from the start, yet the FirstNet leadership just blew everything off. I was more of a nuisance than a solution to them. Now my public private partnership model is being considered in many states without the coordination of FirstNet. The political machine defines a solution as one coming from their own fruition and under their own control – how could a solution come from just one lonely little citizen – why would he think he can change the world?  Oh, I don’t know, why don’t we ask Emerson, Einstein, Steve Jobs or maybe Jesus?
What’s really funny about this whole thing is that FirstNet is still taking the bait and can’t even see the cliff before them. It’s really sad actually. There are a lot of good people trying to do good things, but unfortunately they were blinded by all the non-action going on. Is there a solution? Yes, there is still a solution, but FirstNet needs to get out of the way and let the States handle this. FirstNet missed it chance to direct this ship on the right course it’s time to let the real pros drive now.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog…