Time to move past the “Opt-in” versus “Opt-Out” show. As blatant as can be, each State needs to stop trying to define Opt-in and Opt-Out, and all the theatrics being devised, and start putting your “constituents” to work. No one is going to come into your State and build a Public Safety Broadband Network better than you can do for yourself. If you know that the FirstNet plan “to come in and pay for it all” is too good to be true, then you already know what you have to do.

The answer to unemployment lines, the shortfall in budgets, and the success of delivering a solution for your local First Responders lays at your feet…not FirstNet’s. There is no silver bullet coming from the Federal Government to save the day. You are the only ones that can make your PSBN solution a success.  Stop waiting for hand-outs and act on what you know is the right thing to do. What is it that you need to do? You need to start putting your product portfolio, revenue and marketing plans together, so you can define your Public Safety Broadband Network.

These plans will define what your broadband solution will be. Without your products being defined you can’t create your revenue projections; without knowing the revenue projections you can’t attract the needed private investment to secure your “self-funding” and “self-sustainment”. Without a marketing plan you can’t create your design and schedule. If you decide to appease the federal government and declare yourself as “Opt-In”, then these studies become all the more important for your comparison between Opt-Out versus Opt-In. How do you expect your Governor to make a sound decision against the Opt-In scenario if he/she doesn’t even know what the network looks like; what it can do; and how much it can generate in the way of revenue and market penetration? Without those basic criteria your Governor can’t make a sound decision. Just so you know; it will take 6-12 months for you to put your revenue and marketing plan together – the law is only giving you 90 days to Opt-Out, plus another 120 to put your entire plan together if you decide to Opt-Out. Failing to do so will enable FirstNet to push the NTIA to deny your grant and your Opt-Out plan, to which you will relinquish all your rights to apply for the grant (if you decide to opt-out) while in return they come in and do their own plan, regardless of your needs.

Let’s concentrate on you doing what you need to do for your local First Responders and your own constituents. You need to start your analysis today! If you are entertaining the idea of “waiting to see what FirstNet comes up with” approach, then there is one thing you should note – the Law only talks about how FirstNet can and must perform its duties. The law does not address what the Opt-Out State has to do. For example: the law only addresses the “Opt-Out” State as requiring a two-step approval by the NTIA (not FirstNet) to insure interoperability and technical adherence. If the State meets these requirements, then its plan should be approved. Once the approval is granted the State can apply for its portion of the $7 Billion allocated for the Public Safety Broadband Network buildout (theoretically $127 Million [$7B/55]) – this section of the law only addresses “State Opt-Out” and says nothing about FirstNet. What the law does clearly illustrate is a lot of restrictions put upon “FirstNet”… not the State. In short, the rules that are laid out by, and for, FirstNet don’t apply to a State that decides to Opt-Out from FirstNet. The law only states that the State has to be “interoperable” and “meet technical standards”, thus any timelines are moot in that regard, i.e. 90 days to Opt-Out and 180 to RFP a solution. Those timelines are only addressing a FirstNet solution for a State that is willing to listen to FirstNet’s plan…. thus…. a State can Opt-Out at any time and the rules applying to FirstNet do not apply.  But, those States that want to wait for FirstNet, will have the 90 and 180-day restriction apply to them, thus risk their approval and grant money if they wish to Opt-Out after being presented FirstNet’s plan. For a State that Opts-Out today then it doesn’t apply.

What’s the first step: Step 1 is a Product Portfolio that will define your revenue forecast and market plan — here you need someone who can think like a telecom/broadband entrepreneur (like me). The defined product of broadband access will be broken into service offerings that you can sell through your network. Those service offerings equate to charge-for-service which generates revenue. Broadband Product Portfolios can include 100’s, if not 1000’s, of services that can be rendered, i.e. VoLTE, Access, VPNs, VNOs, Internet Access, etc..  Each service is based on an hourly, monthly, quarterly, or annual service agreement that generates revenue. Based on the market analysis, which defines the users of the network, and aligns the phased build out of the network, you can convey your capital needs to construct and your operational needs to sustain. All of this material is then sold to the investment community.

Investors are interested in one thing — their return on investment. Does the investment demonstrate a strong return; is the user base sustainable; are the services expandable; is there an exit strategy. The documentation you put together today will generate the demand for investors that want to invest into your network, without your plan you have nothing to sell and nothing to compare.

So let’s say the investors indicate they are excited and wish to move forward, what then? Now you need to engage your financial management firm to construct the framework for the board of investors and outline your governance structure of the new P3 (Public Private Partnership) entity – in short, your “NewCo”. From this point forward the DBOM (Design, Build, Operate and Maintain) solution will be conducted by NewCo. Note that the State doesn’t have to do anything, plus being that the State isn’t using tax dollars to pay for anything you also don’t need to go to legislative session to have anything approved….no money….no budgets….nothing to approve. The beauty of the P3! But I would encourage mustering the support behind the Governor’s decision, always looks good when its a team effort.

In the end, all we are doing is creating a new broadband company for the State governed by a private board that is inclusive of the State through a shareholder agreement. This company will construct a hardened infrastructure based on a prioritized user base where as First Responders are considered Priority 1; Secondary Responders are Priority 2 and are made up of State and Federal entities; and Priority 3 traffic is allocated to commercial services through commercial entities. Why is this priority scheme and user base so important – outside of the obvious? The answer to this question is based on the P3 model being a balanced approach of needs utilizing all aspects of product introduction through wireline and wireless assets. A good case in point would be the failure of the Kentucky Wired P3.

As I stated in the past, you cannot deploy the P3 model without fully utilizing the balanced and complimentary product solutions of the wireline (fiber and backhaul) and wireless (LTE) broadband solutions. You also need to diversify the risk profile into multiple investing parties, to include the State. For Kentucky Wired, outside of the fact they tried to plagiarize my model, they only had two real investment parties and the success of their investment and implementation only considered revenue projections from the wireline portion of fiber optic network — a technology that is already in abundance through the main corridors of the State — thus it’s failure and the ability for AT&T to have so much influence in sabotaging the deal. Had the P3 for Kentucky Wired been setup to take advantage of both the wireline, and wireless capabilities, they could have capitalized on many more product offerings; thus created a more robust demand from a larger user base; and a cooperative framework that the commercial carriers (such as AT&T) could utilize to push their own product offerings at the same time increasing margins.

Unfortunately, the Macquarie deal with Kentucky Wired only addressed the fiber portion, thus its failure to allure all interested parties – including the carriers – was a huge failure. With a proper P3 (my model) AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and all other commercial entities, would be clamoring to be a part of the deal – why? Because my P3 allows the State to create a robust, hardened, infrastructure, throughout all the rural and metro areas, that is suitable for a commercial carrier to host its services on without spending a dime in capital. By hosting their services on such a network relieves the commercial carriers of the burdened of maintaining costly infrastructure (something the carriers are trying to move away from); expands their customer base to be inclusive of rural areas (something they have struggled with); while at the same time giving them more coverage area which means more customers, thus more revenue with very little overhead (something they constantly fight for).

But what do I know I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

Mark Levin would be proud; what they hell does “false choice” mean? Do they mean a false choice in accepting, blindly, a FirstNet Top-Down solution? How does a State have a “false choice” when they construct their own solution to build their own network that is fully paid for by their own chosen financial partners and constructors?  The only context being successfully “communicated” here is that, per FirstNet, or maybe the Department of Commerce (which seems to be more of the fit), is that the State will have to pay the piper when the time comes, but “they” can’t define what that is at the moment…so why not “over communicate” to confuse the message? I find it rather interesting when a centralized theme of government control, who believes they can act as a telecom company, tries to build out a nationwide platform by appeasing the NGA with conservatively toned messages of practicality. Smells more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you ask me. How’s that Obamacare website coming along?

First, the term “financial liabilities” is best defined by not knowing what it will cost your taxpayers to Opt-In.  Second, I have to say that such a statement is disrespectful to any State Governor. This statement basically articulates that a Governor can’t think for themselves, but the DOC – I mean FirstNet (or was it the NGA? I’m confused!) — are the only ones that can handle such complex decisions, especially as it relates to local issues of which they will heroically stand in to save the Governor from those pesky little “constituents” – you know those people that elected them into office.

As a close friend recently told me “FirstNet is turning into SecondNet and the States will be FirstNet” (Pat A.)

But why listen to me, after all I’m…

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet, you cannot rely upon the commercial sector to give you what you need. You are missing a crucial point…. supply and demand. If you want any commercial entity to produce products for your needs, you need to create demand. If you can’t create a large enough demand, then the commercial entities won’t produce. Why you ask? It’s simple, because a commercial entity works to create more revenue; revenue allows the company to hire and pay more people; new people buy houses, rent cars, pay bills and buy fancy phones; when people buy more fancy phones then the commercial entity can invest more creative product development; when a commercial company expands its product base it can sell more products, thus the cycle starts all over again. If you can’t create a large enough demand for the commercial entity to make more profit to fund their product development life-cycle, then your needs will go to the back of the line for future development, i.e. never happen.

The business model that FirstNet is targeting, top-down approach, does not address the life-cycle demand forecast that a commercial entity can use to foster their own life-cycles of product development. Once you try to ask the market to do something for you, i.e. the objectives based RFP, you will get a solution that best aligns with the commercial entities needs…not your own needs. Why? Because the commercial entity is just trying to fund its own life-cycle process and that life-cycle process has nothing to do with Public Safety. Why again? Because Public Safety does not create enough demand. If you can’t create that demand, then your model is in trouble and will never get off the ground…no matter how much taxpayer money you throw at it…thus the term “self-funded” and “self-sustaining”.

Throwing money at the issue is not a solution for creating a commercial life-cycle. By throwing money at such an issue will actually only hurt you more in the long run. Why? Because all you are doing is propping up a capital solution to an operational need. You need to address the long term needs that can foster a cyclical approach to developing products. Throwing money at an issue will not create demand. Your demand can only be created by your users. If you don’t have enough users to attract product creativity that will develop your life-cycle, then you have nothing, thus no interest from the commercial space.

So what about the spectrum? If posting the spectrum as the viable alternative by trying to create incentive is your plan, it will fail. Why? Because now all you are doing is isolating your potential respondents to entities that can actually use the spectrum. A commercial entity that uses spectrum to sell services has its own life-cycle to fund; unfortunately for you the commercial product development life-cycle is closely entwined with product manufacturers. The guy that creates the most demand wins. If any entity gets complete access to the D-Block spectrum, they will utilize that spectrum in a way that optimizes their own revenue scheme that funds their own product development life-cycle. Once again, if you want to influence that entities life-cycle then you need to demonstrate a huge demand forecast that will move their bottom line – Public Safety does not create a large enough demand that influences the life-cycle of a commercial carrier…not even close. In fact, Public Safety impacts less than 2% of a large commercial carrier operation – and I’m being very generous on that figure. In the end, by posting the spectrum as the incentive will only create a path for the commercial carriers to taking over the spectrum. Why? Because money talks and it speaks very clearly to investors and shareholders.

What is the answer then? FirstNet needs to focus on a business model that creates its own life-cycle – you can only define a life-cycle if you have defined what your product is. As a hint: the only model that will create that product and life-cycle demand will come from the catalyst infrastructure that will be developed – a truly hardened, fully interoperable and complete coverage network infrastructure. But, in order to build that infrastructure to support broadband access, you need to focus on the local level needs that fall within a given State, else you will just have a huge mess of spaghetti processes that you can’t control later on. As I stated in an earlier article, all entrepreneurial efforts associated with creating a private commercial entity start with a strategy of creating demand surrounding a product. You haven’t even defined your product, yet, your trying to tackle the life-cycle of development for a product that doesn’t exist. Bassackwards is what we call that!

But whom and I other than…

Just some guy and a blog…

Anybody doubt me now? Hopefully you had a chance to review the Subcommittee on FirstNet yesterday. One thing to note was a lot of talk, and questions, surrounding State Opt-Outs. Where there is smoke then there must be fire. You will also note that TJ is an eloquent dancer and can avoid the question like a career politician. One question that hit home was “how many States do you think will Opt Out of FirstNet?” (Congressman Barton of Texas I believe)  The answer to this question will align with my earlier projections of roughly 37 States will Opt-Out. How do I know this? Well, because I presented to all 50 States and the territories, so I have some firsthand insight and premonitions as to where this is going. You should refer to my much earlier article about Red-vs-Blue States. It only takes a hand full of States willing to Opt-Out to kill FirstNet’s top down plan, thus the dancing around the subject. By answering the question means stating the obvious…a declaration of defeat. But, like I said some time ago, in FirstNet’s mind defeat is not an option, no matter how much time, money and effort are spent trying to convince themselves of this. But, this only declares defeat on the notion that their “top-down” plan won’t work.

It’s not the end-game for FirstNet — they will just have their wings cut a little bit. FirstNet is still required for the national footprint and coordination of all the State networks. Without FirstNet administering a national solution, the coordination during multi-State, or large geographically dispersed disaster scenarios, will be uncoordinated and thus a failure.

The fact remains that the term “Opt-Out” really doesn’t exist. The top-down solution for FirstNet was never going to be successful… for building the network that is. In order for FirstNet to be successful, it has to concentrate on establishing itself in a centralized role for the State plans, plus if it wants to create a stream of revenue to build its own self-sustainment, it needs to take a minority shareholder position in each of the State’s Opt Out Public Private Partnerships. The success of Public Safety’s broadband network lies within the State’s ability to conduct its own Public Private Partnership and execute on its own DBOM solution. As part of that success FirstNet must create a centralized standard of interoperability and technical requirements. This is the only way Public Safety can monetize the use of the spectrum to optimal levels of self-sustainment.

Although a State doesn’t require it, FirstNet could also setup a framework of the Public Private Partnership model that each of the States could follow, but like I said, it’s not required by the State, but it is advisable for FirstNet in its national role.  In the end, a State does not need FirstNet as much as FirstNet needs the States. FirstNet needs to let go of the notion that it has to physically design, build, operate and maintain statewide broadband networks; it must focus instead on its centralized interoperable role of interconnecting each of the State solutions into one homogenous platform of Public Safety response and control as needed. FirstNet must work with the States, but allow the States to take the lead in their own builds and P3s, this is the only way self-funding and self-sustainment can be met.

Just some guy and a blog…

Governor, what are you waiting for? Do you realize that you are the only one holding up your State’s next big job creator, economic catalyst, and income source? By waiting for FirstNet you are only extending a bad view of your own mindset and how the State can be improved. The scope of the National Public Safety Broadband Network is not about broadband – it’s all about building a large scale, protected, infrastructure.

Anybody that’s been in the telecom industry for the last 30 years can tell you, FirstNet’s issue is not a technical problem; we’ve been deploying LTE for more than 10 years now. They will also tell you that it’s not a tactical deployment problem; we’ve been building telecom infrastructure for more than 40 years now. What any telecom veteran will tell you is that FirstNet’s primary problem is financial. You solve the financial problem then everything else within the technical and tactical requirements will fall in line.

The second issue that FirstNet faces is credibility. How do you convince someone who has already committed themselves to NOT rely upon the federal government to do anything local? How do you convince a State Official that someone outside of the State can do anything better than what they can do for themselves? The fact is you can’t. You cannot change someone who has committed themselves in the mind. All you will do is waste a lot of time, energy, and money trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to change. Ultimately the end result is you giving up later on – even if you force them to do what you want. Sound familiar? Any parent can teach you this fact of life.

Anyone who is already committed in the mind, will not falter from their standpoint; in fact, they will only become more defiant to your demands — then everyone loses. The only thing you can do is understand their point of view, commit yourself to help them where you can, and adjust to repair if they fail. In the end, it’s not about who has the bigger stick; it’s about getting something done. Just accept the other viewpoint, then move on to others who support your more direct idea. Stop worrying about interoperability, or control, no one wants to build an isolated broadband network that doesn’t work with anyone else – that’s counterintuitive. Once FirstNet understands this, then trust will start to ferment.

The law states that the Public Safety Broadband Network has to be “self-sustaining” and “self-funded”. These requirements, along with technical and tactical requirements, become the basis for everything that FirstNet has to do going forward. There’s no such thing as partial government subsidies, grants, or taxpayer funded bond, that defines “self-funding” or “self-sustaining”.  The only way to achieve total “self-funding” and “self-sustaining” is to be a private commercially driven solution focused on prioritizing Public Safety. The only way to achieve a commercially driven solution to meet the financial needs of support for Public Safety is through a balanced Public Private Partnership business model built from the bottom-up — The Myers Model. “Self-funded” and “self-sustaining” is the antithesis to President Obama’s viewpoint that “they didn’t build that; the government did” approach.

In fact, the law, as written, is the basis for the converse approach and ultimately the antithetical desires of what the President was signing into law (HR 3630). In short, the President declares publicly that solutions, like FirstNet, are not built by the individual, but rather the government; then turns around and signs a contradictory law into existence. By the President singing HR 3630, of which specifically declares a “self-driven entity”, separate from the Federal Government (FirstNet), and then factually stating that the solution that “FirstNet” is to deliver is required to “self-fund” and “self-sustain”, only illustrates that the whole process for FirstNet was doomed from day one. Kind of like “War of the Worlds” – the Aliens were doomed the moment they entered our atmosphere.  

How will FirstNet, or at least the Public Safety Broadband Network, be saved? That one little clause in the Act that states that a State can “Opt-Out” of FirstNet and build it themselves using their own “Public Private Partnership”. If you look back at the development of the law, it’s like someone knew that this was going to be a disaster from the start, thus, they managed to put in a “backdoor” for States to escape and act upon. Just the thought of a “backdoor” is an illustration in the lack of support for a total government delivered solution. In the end, the “Opt-Out” approach only illustrates that there was never any real belief that the government was going to succeed anyway, so why wait now?

Realistically, the notion of failure for the “top-down” approach is starting to take hold. Why else would you put out a hail-marry of an “objectives based RFP”? As I stated, if FirstNet is devoted to their “top-down”, “all for one federal approach”, to building the National Public Safety Broadband Network, then let them. As written in the “Art of War”, “never interrupt your enemy as they fall”. But, having pushed the Public Safety community around for so long, then not delivering a convincing message of a solution, has only depleted the trust to a point of dissociation.

The fact remains the same – Governor — why are you holding up your State’s ability to capitalize on the creation of new jobs, more economic development, advancing commercial services, all while prioritizing Public Safety onto a broadband infrastructure for your State? Why are you listening to someone who isn’t local to any of your concerns? What do you, and your constituents, have to gain from watching the FirstNet “top-down” solution fail? What do you really expect you’re going to hear from FirstNet on what their offer is to the State? Don’t you see that by acting now you can foster a more convincing position with the people that elected you? Why do we need to wait for a FirstNet solution you know you are not going to run with anyway? Just congratulate FirstNet on their achievements so far, then move on and do what’s right for your own citizens. Take it from a guy with more than 30 years in developing the broadband industry….no one is going to build and prosper more from your own network than you.  

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog……

The fact remains the same “why would a State want a Federal Organization to construct a local State network?” More than 75% of all the traffic routed and generated on any given network is locally driven – and that is a conservative 75%. That would mean that less than 25% of the traffic is routed and generated non-locally. What percentage of that 25% actually has anything to do with a federally driven program of operating in a “Public Safety” capacity?

If any given network is layered in security and is addressed to meet the demands of three pools of priority clients, i.e. Priority 1 being First Responders; Priority 2 being Secondary Responders; and Priority 3 being all commercial traffic (non-public safety specific), then you can quantitatively measure the historical packet driven logs to isolate network traffic loads between your usage base. In short, I can look at the logs and isolate what the traffic patterns are for each priority group.

The three priority group scheme is actually not something I just made up. The scheme is a basic network design of layered user access prioritization for any given network. It just so happens that a three priority group function fits perfectly for what Public Safety needs. By functionally isolating these three groups of users we can then adopt specific virtual network topologies in segmenting traffic loads and assigning them class codes to meet billable traffic patterns – down to the individual packet level. In layman’s terms, we can use our three user groups and isolate every individuals network usage and then charge them for their use. Why didn’t I just say so? Because, I’m a PhD and that’s how we roll.

Why am I even talking about this? Because this is a way overly simplistic view of a very complex network that needs to be created, operated, controlled and self-sustainable across a very diverse group of users all focused on their own needs. If 75% of all traffic on a network is locally generated, why would we think a 25% of the remaining non-local traffic should dictate the overall design and control of a State’s network? I can assure you that the 25% is actually much smaller and will realistically be around 3% of usage based on Federal public safety support solutions. In short, any State that Opts-In to a nationwide FirstNet solution will in fact be controlled by less than 3% of user traffic.  

Now let’s look at the actual 75% of the network. Of the 75% of the network the 3% figure translates into local Public Safety traffic patterns as well. Why? Because test have already shown that local public safety traffic generated on any given network has less than a 3% usage factor. Meaning, local Public Safety guys/gals only use 3% of the networks they have today and is presumed to be the same on the new network. With a 3% usage factor means we have more than 97% availability on the network for Priority 2 and Priority 3 customers.

Priority 2 customers are unique in that they will be administered as both a Secondary Responder as well as normal business operations. As an example; a Utility can be classified as Secondary user of the network (or even temporarily commissioned Priority 1 status) during a disaster to help with first response needs. During non-disaster times a Priority 2 Utility could utilize the network for its SCADA or micro-phase networks in maintaining its electrical distribution grid.

Priority 3 customers are the non-first, or secondary, responders. But, you should realize that any user of the network could be re-organized on the fly as a secondary or first response need demands – it’s all up to the “local commander” on the disaster scene. Meanwhile, while no disaster exists, the priority 3 traffic users can utilize all the underutilized or unused bandwidth for commercial operations – generating revenue.

Generating revenue will be crucial to a State’s need to be self-staining and self-funded. As predicted, in my model, the revenue generated from Priority 2 and 3 users will be sufficient in meeting that demand – and then some. BUT, if a State Opts-In to FirstNet then it will not be the ones controlling that aspect of the network and will in-fact relinquish that control over to FirstNet –or worse yet a commercial contract that FirstNet administers.

The terms of FirstNet’s RFP is asking for a $5 Billion dollar annual payment for 20+ years, so let’s use that as a basis for discussion. Now I’m no math mathematician, but $5 Billion divided by 56 (States and Territories) would equal roughly $90 Million a year for each State…if the State were to see any of that money…and that is GROSS not NET. Realistically how much of that $90 Million do you think a State would be able to benefit from? How about none. Why can’t a State benefit from the annual payment to FirstNet? Because the law states that “FirstNet” must reinvest all its revenue back into the network, it says nothing about the State. In fact, in the model suggested by FirstNet only allows for a “service offering” to the States, so in short the State will see nothing from that revenue. The big winners will be the commercial carrier, or contract entity that FirstNet awards the RFP too.

The commercial contract established by FirstNet will generate Billions of dollars for any given commercial carrier. Even more pleasing is that the commercial carrier doesn’t have to invest any more money than they would have already invested in infrastructure. Remember, the commercial carriers are only interested in the geographic localities that generate money, thus the major metropolitan areas (where they already are). So why would a commercial carrier, or contract entity want to be awarded the contract? Because they don’t have to pay for the spectrum!

Anyone that has been in the telecom industry for the last 40 years will tell you that the most expensive part of building out a network has to do with acquiring the spectrum and putting in your backup solutions on cell-towers. The cost of buying the spectrum dwarfs any capital or operational program. In this case a commercial entity can avoid those costs — thus is way more receptive to building the network for “Public Safety” reasons. As I wrote about in the past, this whole deal is about acquisiton of 20Mhz of spectrum – that’s it. That 20Mhz of spectrum is very valuable and if you can get access to it for free, then why wouldn’t you? What’s the carrier plan?

If I were the CEO of one of these carriers, I’m thinking long-term. I would just partner with a good team that brings a message of fulfilling the demands of what’s in the RFP. Then, overtime, I will start to provision services onto the network (after its built) that enforces reliability to meet government demands. Eventually the State, or FirstNet, will come back and ask for build out to the rural areas, but at this point I have the State, and FirstNet, over a barrel, because of all the commercial and local prioritized traffic being used on the network. In short, FirstNet and the State will have no control at that point and then the spectrum will be fully under the control of my private commercial operations. Pretty sweet if you ask me. I’m able to build a network, enhance my own network, add more capacity, have the taxpayers flip most of the bill, generate lots of revenue, and not have to spend a dime on any of the spectrum. Outside of being an ethical issue, why wouldn’t any commercial entity want to reap those benefits – on the backs of Public Safety, the taxpayers and a naïve Federal entity? If you get a chance read a book called “Snakes in Suits”, it will explain a lot.

So let’s look at the makeup of a Rivada-Mercury that is being boasted about. To tell you the truth I like the framework of execution on this strategy, the only real issue is the terms and conditions of who owns the network, who’s in control of the network, and how would a local State Public Safety Organization be able to influence the architecture when he needs it? The bigger problem here — and why this won’t work — is the “Top Down” approach, which by the way I just see Rivada-Mercury as being reactionary to the RFP thus would explain their pursuit to get States to Opt-Out. The teaming established by Rivada-Mercury is good, although I would shy away from the vendors having any say on position in a holistic national goal, especially if those vendors don’t have any scope in the deal. Who wants competitive vendors fighting over a market they aren’t even playing in yet? The structure is based on my model of a P3 partnership to bring in the financial investment to build it; an EPC to manage the build and construct it; both major vendors of LTE (and Fujitsu) willing to sell you equipment – I mean who wouldn’t; and a carrier relationship to keep others warm and fuzzy. The big issue is really the “top-down” approach. I think Mr. Ganley knows this, but he’s playing both sides of the fence in getting some kind of an award, which is understandable, but raises another issue…. trust. How do you “trust” a double agent? Short answer is you don’t.

The one good thing about a double-agent is you know where they stand. They are in it for themselves no matter what. So when the time comes to make the decision to go with the double-agents plan, you know you are taking a huge risk….in this case you are risking a whole lot of political infighting, taxpayer commitments and etc… I’m not saying Mr. Ganley is a bad guy, in fact in such complex situations it’s good to have someone with that kind of drive and enthusiasm on your team, but the board will need to keep a short leash on him so that they can control the trust issue – I’m sure that’s why they have a new Co-CEO (very smart move).  

Regardless, the framework they propose can work, but needs to be applied from the “bottom-up” – a State “Opt-Out”.  The complexity associated with adopting such a framework is too cumbersome to manage, in fact, it’s impossible. The real question is who owns the network and how can a local guy get the support they need to do their job? The solution that Rivada-Mercury is putting forth will not meet the demands…in fact…no federal top-down solution will. My suggestion for Rivada-Mercury would be to elevate themselves above the direct role when it comes to their teaming effort and focus on more of an executable framework to which they could plug and play new players in each role. Don’t commit yourself to a solid team until everyone completely understands their role and that role may take some time to understand. The only plausible way of doing this will be by focusing on the deployment in geographic areas, but don’t forget about State controls, legislators, and governance structures. But, if you take on this role you are in fact a Program Manager and thus will relinquish control to the more local or regional executable players. The more you give away in your capital program the less control you have over the ownership, which makes this position impossible from a national federal level. Piecing together individual State Opt-Out solutions, using the same framework of execution, is actually where Rivada-Mercury needs to focus. Leave the national FirstNet solution to another Program Manager. Just because you are a Program Manager at the federal level doesn’t mean you have any control over what happens in the State, i.e. the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. What I’m trying to say is that executing on such a framework is nice, but if you haven’t realized the full context of all the variables, and how they will impact the solution, you are in fact introducing time delays, legal consensus, political correctness and money. Stay local, stay small, and focus on “cookie-cutter”. Which begs to question…is this really what a State wants to buy into?

The fact is we’re only touching the tip of the ice-berg of complexity here. Will a State Governor, as they are exposed to more and more of the complexity of the FirstNet national solution, see any benefit in Opting-In? In essence, the case is being made for Opt-Out by FirstNet itself. The more we learn about the complexities of deploying such a solution from the “top-down”; the more political in-fighting we see; the more greed is exposed; the more we understand that we need to KISS it – keep it simple stupid. Hopefully FirstNet is starting to understand this scenario themselves, thus will change course and focus on the “bottom-up” solution, whereas each individual State (who is capable) can build their own solution within their own boundaries. Using the framework that Rivada-Mercury is presenting (although I can see the very similar approach to my own) is in fact the way for the build-out to happen…BUT…from the ground up. For what the Rivada-Mercury team is proposing they really need to focus on the State. What FirstNet needs is a Program Manager – that’s all. Someone who can manage FirstNet requirements for national control centers, centralized datacenters, and most importantly the connectivity with State control centers, datacenters, etc…

So here I interject, if the framework that Rivada-Mercury is selling is the solution, then multiple teams should be developed to compete in the same space. I can tell you that I’ve been working closely with many of the States and proposing a similar solution, but in the model we propose we run the EPC/vendor/P3 framework that demonstrates complete Public Safety control to the State and its interoperability with the nationwide FirstNet top-down solution — while at the same time not costing the taxpayer a dime and allowing the State, and FirstNet, a solid stream of revenue. How do I know this? Literally I wrote the book on it. All of what the Rivada Mercury team is proposing is based on the context of my model that I’ve been exalting since day one – only in this case I did not expose everything to the open forum. After all, I need to protect the secret sauce. The fact remains that Rivada Mercury has done a good thing in opening up a new can of warms of competitive landscape. I congratulate Rivada Mercury for doing this.

Why am I praising another team’s proposal that competes with my own? Well the fact is simple, in a heroic fashion this is way bigger than me, or any one team, but more specifically it’s because I see a competitive fabric of competing bids to the Rivada-Mercury solution as the answer. In order to build out his entire solution we will need competition. If the competition understands the framework, such as Rivada-Mercury now does, then many more teams can be setup to compete in this huge market place. Plus, what better way to moot the competition than to introduce more competition? It’s like I planned it all along…imagine that. The fact is the Myers Model™ approach, that Rivada-Mercury is using, is just a model. If you don’t know all the parts and pieces to how it works then you will fail, or your client will fail, it may take a while, but it will happen, thus the risk. Do you ask a baker to build your car?

The context of building out this network will be based on availability of local resources to construct and manage the eventual market. We are talking about a whole new market that will dwarf the current TURF market by 3-4 times…that’s a lot of people going to work.  If I can make a buck in helping that goal be achieved then that’s gravy on top, but in the end I am, as I have been since the beginning, focused on the tax relief, jobs creation portion of the new law – the context of putting Public Safety first so that it can achieve its mission a mission that will touch every one of us when time calls. If I were focused on the money, then I would have ad’s on my website.

If you want to setup your own team to compete in this market, then let me know. Working for my current employer allows for me to consult on all levels of the opportunity and provides the depth of the solution. Plus, it helps when the company you work for has a long history of putting together these large-scale P3s and has been fully engaged with State Opt-Out solutions. It’s too big to win it all for ourselves, plus it takes a lot of good partners to execute. Just so you know, the most important piece to understand has not been divulged, that needs to be applied to each P3 team that is setup to go after each State Opt-Out solution. Think of it this way, each State will in-fact create its own private broadband company.

So you want to be involved, but don’t know how? Let me know. We can help. It’s really not that difficult. The most difficult thing to consider right now is how to put your team together, of which we have formulated a few already – specifically for this opportunity. It’s not about the overall national FirstNet program, it’s all about the State. The model we have presented, to many States now, is solid and can be made up of many different partners. We have partners now, but we can use many more.  

Just some guy and a blog…