Have you read Donny Jackson’s latest article entitled “Will other states follow New Hampshire’s lead and conduct their own RFPs for public-safety LTE?

Can I say I told you so! My idea in that the only way to truly meet the demands of the law, in it’s entirety, and to fully “self-fund” and “self-sustain” the complete solution for Public Safety Broadband is finally being recognized. There isn’t a clearer way to put it than to layout exactly what the law says – there is no false interpretation to be had. If you disagree and state that “others interpret the law differently” then you are purposefully trying to curtail the actual goal with your own modified goal, especially when the law is so clear and precise.  This is not a case of who has the better idea, it’s a case of which idea is the right one.

Step 2: You go into the Law and look for “Subtitle B—Governance of Public Safety Spectrum” (just do a Ctrl-F and put in a piece of the title it will take you right there)

Step 5: Under section (g) you will see — right in front of you – the following, “(1) IN GENERAL — A State that chooses to build its own radio access network (in other words OPT-OUT) shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State EXCEPT DIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (key word here is EXCEPT) for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State.”

Step 6: You then specifically read, over and over again, the statement described in the Law that says “EXCEPT DIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS” … “EXCEPTDIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS” … “EXCEPT DIRECTLY THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS”.Eventually you will start to understand what the Law is saying and how it should be interpreted. Simply put, an Opt-Out State can collect revenue through a “Public Private Partnership”. There is no other interpretation to be had.  I mean you can look up the term yourself, you will find that the word “EXCEPT” is a counter argument, or solution, to the statement of “shall not”, but I digress.

From this point forward you need to do what New Hampshire just did, request your own proposal for a Public Private Partnership that you, as an “opt-out” State, will utilize to mandate a solution that will “self-fund” and “self-sustain” your statewide broadband network; then let the private sector takeover and come up with some ingenious and creative ideas for you. It really is that simple.

Now don’t go off feeling sorry for FirstNet just because the idea they proposed from the start was never going to work. The fact is, FirstNet has everything to gain from this; they can keep the $6.75 Billion for themselves to augment their own needs for a national CORE solution; at the same time develop their own centralized operations and long-term data storage necessities. On top of that, FirstNet can just layout its “own” ownership stake in each of the State “opt-out” efforts thus creating their own “self-sustaining” solution long-term. Ahh…the beauty of the Public Private Partnership model.

What New Hampshire is doing will be the catalyst for the rest of the nationwide build-outs. For someone to believe that too many States coming out at once asking for their own RFP seeking a similar P3 like New Hampshire is a bad idea; I would counter that assumption with the notion that such a dilemma will be a GREAT problem to have — much better than what we have today. Have faith in the American People and the industry. I can guarantee you that the industry will morph to meet the needs of such an expanding market place – like a sun dried sponge being dunked into a pale of ice cold water on a hot summer day in Texas.  Such action in the market place will benefit everyone, to include the overall economy, by providing the “middle class with tax-relief” through private investments thus funding “job creation” through the “Action” of economic development for the foreseeable future – thus the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012”.

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

Once again you can easily see that there is no real connection between the FirstNet required process under the law and the State’s requirements to meet the FCCs requirements for technical and self-funding adherence with the law. In essence, the State can put forth its own plan without even considering the FirstNet solution as long as it meets the demands as laid out for approved vendors and technical capability; interoperable, the ability to be self sustaining and equal to, or better than, broadband coverage.

In the end, the law sets the framework for the commissioning of the Public Safety Broadband Network, but it does not specifically step on the toes of the States in its ability to control its own plan to build, operate and prosper from its own deployment strategy. I would imagine that there will be those who believe that the State must wait, but is this a fight you really want to take on – especially now? We all want to build the PSBN to support our First Responders, lets not get in the way of that progress. If a State wants to do its own thing, and has its own plan, then let them.

Just some guy and a blog….

There’s been a lot of activity recently pertaining to the Public Safety Broadband Network. I still can’t get over how naïve some can be in believing that the carriers are the answer to FirstNet. The carriers have a viable solution – for a commercial revenue driven business model – not FirstNet. Have you ever had a crush on a person only to be drastically disappointed after the first date?

With the recent RFP from Mexico, requesting a Public Private Partnership to build its own Public Safety Broadband Network, is a perfect opportunity for FirstNet to see what a real solution may be for its own bid. The size and complexity of the FirstNet solution is way too big for just one little partnership. The FirstNet solution will require a large consortium of private investment to drive the ownership model of FirstNet; the same context to which Mexico is asking for. The fact is the solution for FirstNet does not lay at the feet of the carriers, they are too small, and it clearly does not lay at the feet of just a contractor, the solution will be an ownership structure manifested with a consortium of private investors. It’s not about the technology, or the rollout, its all about the money and the ability to make money – pure and simple.

FirstNet won’t find what its looking for in their RFP. A State can act more expeditiously than a large contracting element run by the Federal Government. If FirstNet finally gets on the bandwagon, and starts to focus on a private equity or concessionaire model, then they will understand that they need to align themselves based on ownership, private funding, and return on investment – not the physical build. The State will have to build its own network anyway even if FirstNet were to be deployed on its own model. The State has all the local resources to construct. By FirstNet refocusing itself on the P3 (Public Private Partnership) ownership the funding and revenue will be come front and center. By making the ownership model front and center then we can augment any FirstNet effort with a financial connection to the State and meet the “self sustaining” mandate in the law. There is no other model that will enable the FirstNet solution to be “self funded” and “self sustaining”.

Focusing on a P3 is not enough, you have to really understand where you stand, where your partners stand, who is delivering what, and what the return will be. A good example would be the Kentucky Broadband project. Here we had the State, under Governor Beshear, solicit a P3 to build its core fiber optic network throughout the State. Unfortunately, the State did not adhere to models correct framework and solicited taxpayer bonds to fund a portion of the P3. In my model the State wouldn’t pay anything. This fiber optic network is in fact the underlining architecture for the Public Safety wireless program. Without the fiber solution the PSBN won’t work. Unfortunately, Macquarie did not fully understand the P3 model that they stole acquired for its deployment. In a State P3 model, specifically for the PSBN solution (which includes the fiber portion), the model I put forth does not require any taxpayer money. In fact, by introducing bonds to help pay for a solution within a State only injects the political process into the deal, something you would think Macquarie would have learned from the State of Utah — another failed model. As you can read for yourself the Kentucky led P3 with Macquarie is now faltering under its own greed. Thank goodness that Kentucky has a new Governor, Governor Bevin, who understands what is happening and is trying to repair the damage already done. The fact is, the P3 for Kentucky was awarded and led under nefarious reasons, thus the reason the solution is failing, much like I warned about sometime ago.

In the end you have to construct the model and balance the needs of the entire partnership; and you must avoid taxpayer funding when it presents itself. Anything the Federal or State Government touches comes with the political engine, so be warned. FirstNet, and the State of Kentucky, can both learn from the RFP in Mexico. It is this lack of understanding, and the political tie-in, as the reason FirstNet will get less than what they were expecting in response to their RFP as written. We can’t sit back anymore and just convince ourselves that the current RFP is just a fact finding mission… again, we need to adopt the same model Mexico is pursuing and stop playing around with all the meetings and data collection.

Just some guy and a blog…..

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for FirstNet. FirstNet needs to review the RFP just put out by Mexico. That RFP is exactly what FirstNet needs to do. The RFP for Mexico will be – and mark my words…again – a huge success. Unless the teams trying to bid for it don’t understand how to align with the Public Private Partnership they have requested. Given the size of the network, and the enormous 90 Mhz of pristine spectrum, the Mexican solution will really be a nice solid infrastructure for the future of telecommunications in that country. Hats off to Mexico!

My rough estimate would put that network at a capex program of more than $4.5 Billion and the opex bill at $4.5-$10 Billion annually. Profits will be in the mid 20-30 Billion annually….easily. With 90 Mhz of spectrum they will be able to fit the entire nation on one network, heck they could even build into the United States and out perform FirstNet… don’t count this out but that may just be a requirement in the future. There will be some very happy investors in that deal. This network will be able to do so many things all interoperating together into a solid infrastructure of wireless and wireline access scenarios. Everyone will be able to interface with this solution and prioritized for whatever business there are in.

FirstNet, let go of the past and embrace the future through your own Public Private Partnership. If you don’t know what that really means, then step aside and bring in the real experts. The fate of the national network, and your jobs, is on the line for this one. Then again, as I have said in the past, a State doesn’t need FirstNet to build its own profitable broadband solution for Public Safety – FirstNet needs the States.

But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog….