Month: September 2016

FirstNet – Arizona puts out its own RFP to Opt-Out, but….

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

If you’ve had a chance to read the RFP that Arizona just advertised, then you must know that the RFP is a miniature version of the FirstNet plan. Essentially, the State is asking for a carrier to come in and build their network. About the only good thing about the RFP is that is a downsize version of what FirstNet is doing. The bad thing is the carrier plan won’t work, or isn’t optimal, on many fronts. Sometimes trying to enforce your own requirements only insures that you will get what you asked for. If you aren’t totally sure what you want and need, then you should rethink your approach. In the end, someone will be held accountable for any bad decisions.

Nefarious

First off, let’s look at the response situation to the RFP itself. The market will see this as an RFP that has been coordinated with a carrier prior to its advertisement, thus may not attract to many real followers. If the desire is to insure you have a carrier relationship to maintain current broadband services that are in use today, then a better solution would be to just keep your existing services and modify their contract to cover the new scope of services desired – a whole lot easier to deal with than going through an entire RFP process to ask for the same. Unfortunately, the market will see this for what it is, thus the State will either get respondents just throwing something at the State hoping that it sticks; or responses will be limited to a small list of carrier solutions that increase the risk of anti-competitive procurement steps that run a high risk of contention with market players; or the request just won’t get the players it needs.

Obligated

Second, the RFP, as is the case with FirstNet, does not meet the requirements of the law. If the State uses this format, then in fact it may be held to the same standards that FirstNet is on the national deployment, i.e. HR3630, sec 6301-6302. Written in those standards is the requirement for “self-sustaining” and “self-funded” solutions. In this case, the State, through its partnership with the carrier, will only cover the major metropolitan areas and will lack the coverage required for the rural and wilderness areas – which by the way makes up the majority of the geography in the State. The State will eventually get to a discussion point with its carrier partner about building out to the rural areas. The number one question that will be the elephant in the room, is who is going to pay for it. The State will ask the Feds and the Feds will say no – or worse yet commit to an unfunded mandate; the State will then inform the carrier partner that they have to pay for it and the carrier will say no way, there isn’t enough revenue to be made to justify the expense; then it will roll back to the State, who will have to face the taxpayers to fund it because they already struck a contract with their carrier partner. So you tell me, do you think this is going to be successful?

Is it Worth the Effort?

Third; when you read the RFP you can see that there was some infighting within the State as to which way the solution should go – some say give it to their long-time carrier partner who hasn’t done them wrong in the past and is best suited to build such a network; some say give it to the market and use a true Public Private Partnership to create the State’s own broadband company. The fact this current version of the RFP slants the entire process towards a carrier who maintains its own spectrum, and the reliance upon a requirement to insure inter-carrier agreements are in place, only demonstrates the lack of knowledge of how a broadband network is marketed, designed and operated. It also creates the perception that someone has been taking from the cookie jar. Such actions should be cause enough for any real investors to shy away from, but the solution will move forward anyway only to be fraught with bad judgements, missed timelines, unfilled commitments and total misalignment that will eventually require a complete house-cleaning in the executive staff in charge of the entire thing, thus starting all over again, or worse yet, never repaired and always the boondoggle paid for by the State taxpayers and profited by those contractors that hold the best relationship with those that wrote the bid.
It Smells
The fact that someone like myself, who has 30+ years in the industry, and who has read the RFP in its entirety, can see the agenda that has been laid out, should raise a few red flags, especially within the elected officials of the State. It should also point out that this RFP smells of insider trading. In the end though, I do wish the State well in its endeavor. Unfortunately, unless your team comes with a real carrier, and you are willing to forgo the timeline of hassles, you won’t get an endorsement from me, but I’m a nobody, so who cares right? If you do have the endurance and the finances to hold your own, which few of us have this day, then you should expect a long lifecycle of a boondoggle, thus lots of committed cash to your efforts for the long-run, if you’re willing to wait that long….or maybe not, who knows right?
Now don’t blame me, I just happen to be the one who is stating what everyone is thinking as it pertains to Arizona’s RFP. If you want to see what a good RFP looks like, you should read the Alabama RFP, that is what Arizona needs. Arizona has a chance to correct this, but it needs to move fast, there will be more RFPs hitting the market soon — the wave is building are you ay be in the way in you aren’t riding it.

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet and the 30-second elevator pitch? Q&A from Mr Jackson that seems to be one sided?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Have you read Donny Jackson’s latest article? It makes for an interesting read, but I wanted to address the same questions he posed with alternative answers to what he termed “double talk”. This is a response made in humor, I think, but here it goes.
How much will the FirstNet system cost? The government estimates up to $47 billion, but Congress only allocated $7 billion. FirstNet will pay the contractor $6.5 billion of that, according to the request for proposals (RFP).
Truth be told is that the $47 Billion only covers the 42% of metro and some suburban areas, it does not cover the 58% of rural or wilderness areas. Why? Because with a carrier relationship those are the areas that the carriers are already deployed in. Under a carrier business model, they will not deploy to the rural or wilderness areas because there is no revenue in it. More realistic estimates for FirstNet, including the rural and wilderness areas, have the network capex at over $100 Billion, but who’s counting right? This doesn’t include the $10 Billion a year of operational costs to operate and maintain the network annually.
So, FirstNet doesn’t have enough money to do this, and it’s essentially going to be broke before it gets started? No, the winning contractor is going to build the estimated $47 billion network, and it will pay FirstNet at least $5.625 billion over the next 25 years to sustain FirstNet during that period.
Maybe I’m not getting this, but why would a carrier, who is already deployed in the same footprint of the $47 Billion dollar FirstNet network, want to pay for another network over the same area and then pay the government another $5.625 Billion annually? Am I missing something here? The spectrum isn’t worth that much. Who is going to pay for the real reason FirstNet is being built – that is to get coverage in the rural and wilderness areas? I can guarantee you it won’t be the carrier, there isn’t enough revenue in those areas for them to be concerned. Can someone say “taxpayer”?
That’s not how RFPs work—the government is supposed to just pay a contractor, right? Not in this case. This is a public-private partnership, and FirstNet is trying an unprecedented approach.
Unprecedented is an understatement. First off, the Government is paying for this – what’s the $6.5 Billion? Who will pay for the rural and wilderness coverage areas? Taxpayer? In actuality the only thing Public and Private about the FirstNet approach, given that they follow Federal Acquisiton Requirements (FAR), is the fact the Public will end up giving away its loot to the private side for pennies on the dollar and still not get its objectives met. FirstNet’s approach to a Public Private Partnership, to self-fund and self-sustain a nationwide network, is too much for them to handle and does include the collage of State and user requirements.  I think the term may be called boondoggle?
Why would a contractor be willing to build a network and run it for 25 years, when it won’t even get $1 billion in net cash?Because the contractor can make a lot of money by gaining access to FirstNet’s valuable spectrum, which it can use to sell commercial services.
I already addressed this the second question. In short, they won’t. But, they will let the whole process work its way through the minutia, where as they can position themselves to get the spectrum for free, thus adding to their own stash of spectrum holdings while at the same time looking like the hero. I mean, if I were a carrier, that’s what I would do. Especially if I’m a carrier who is already moving towards an all software based services model on streaming. (topic below)
I thought this was a public-safety network, not a commercial network? It is. Public safety will get prioritized access to the network, but the contractor can offer commercial services on a secondary basis.
I have no idea what is meant here. I’ve never seen a “contractor” sell commercial wireless or wireline services on anything in my entire 30-year telecom career. But maybe I’m missing something here? I still don’t know who will be operating the FirstNet nationwide network and I’ve been studying this market since its inception. I think the word may be “awardee”, but still, who will that be — a carrier, a vendor, a federal agency, or a hotdog vendor?
You mentioned spectrum earlier. What is that?(Questioner’s eyes glaze over during an explanation of Wireless 101)
Answer: Spectrum is the credit union I used to belong too. If you don’t know what spectrum is, then you shouldn’t be in this market.
As I wrote about in the past, for those that think players like AT&T are the answer to designing, deploying and maintaining the Public Safety Broadband Network – think again. In a recent article in the Dallas Business Journal entitled “Report: AT&T has set a timeline to phase out satellites and set-top boxes” there is one poignant aspect that FirstNet, or any State wishing to partner with such players, should consider when negotiating with such a partner.
“There’s going to be segments of the population that are going to continue to use satellite for a period of time to come,” he said. “AT&T is well-positioned for a move away from legacy hardware, Stankey said, because of its wireless and broadband businesses.” (Dallas Business Journal)
The key words to consider here is “move away from legacy hardware”. Given that AT&T has already sold off its last remaining tower assets to Crown Castle, and a host of managed services to third parties, why would anyone think the carriers would be trying to build another network, especially one that runs a really high risk of failure and has a very limited amount of customers? You see the carriers understand that the market they’ve been playing in for the past 50 years, is not the market of the future. If the carriers can shed as much overhead related to owning physical assets and move to a very lucrative model of services, then you must understand that the carriers are shifting into a new market that is dominated by the likes of Google, Netflix, Microsoft and others. In short, the carriers are moving out of a $25 Billion declining industry, and into a $100-$500 Billion market of streaming, content and virtual services market. If I can shed my physical assets to someone, like a Public Safety initiative, why wouldn’t I? It will cut my overheads as I move into a new market while at the same time allowing me to capture some needed revenue for the sale of assets. Let someone else work with the spectrum and the towers…all I want is to profit off a highly lucrative services model.
I believe FirstNet needs to do more than work on 30-second elevator pitches? Maybe they should really be looking at their long-term strategy?
But whom am I other than……

Just some guy and a blog…..

Comment Submittal on the Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Requests from the FirstNet Radio Access Network

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Comment Submittal on the Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Requests from the FirstNet Radio Access Network

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 09/21/2016
Comments are due on or before October 21, 2016 and reply comments are due on or before November 21, 2016.
Comments Written by: Dr. Michael Myers
Independent Consultant
September 23, 2016

Abstract

FirstNet radio access network as provided under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, as well as on the Commission’s implementation of the specific statutory standards by which it is obligated to evaluate State opt-out applications.

Summary

The following document outlines comments in regards to the jurisdiction of the Commission and its approval process for any State that wishes to Opt-Out of FirstNet. In highlight, there are misinterpretations of the law as to what is expected for the given timeframe of 180 days; and the approval process needs to be adjusted for a competitive approach between a State Opt-Out and FirstNet itself.

Responses

14. As an initial matter, we observe that the Public Safety Spectrum Act does not contemplate that ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions’’ would be directly authorized to serve as operators of their own 700 MHz public safety broadband networks. Rather, the Act charges a single entity, FirstNet, with constructing, operating, and maintaining the NPSBN on a nationwide basis. Accordingly, the requirements the NPRM proposes or considers for the combined 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum—in which FirstNet will operate on a nationwide basis—will not directly affect a substantial number of small entities. The absence of a direct effect on a substantial number of small entities suggests that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these proposed requirements.
Comment: Clarification needs to be applied to the use “the Act charges a single entity, FirstNet, with constructing, operating, and maintaining the NPSBN on a nationwide basis.” This is not a true statement. The law states the following:
SEC. 6202. PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The First Responder Network Authority shall ensure the establishment of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network.

It can therefore be established that the law only specifies the “FirstNet” “shallensure the establishment of a nationwide network” – the law does not state that FirstNet is “charged” with the right to construct, FirstNet is only granted a provision of oversight to “ensure” the construction of the network. A State may feel the need to Opt-Out of which would mean the State will be in “charge” of its own deployment. In fact, the “FirstNet” organization, inclusive of the 15-member Board, sits only in the capacity of an oversight position to insure the NPSBN is delivered on a nationwide basis, as illustrated in Sec. 6204 (b)(1) below. The law does not “charge” FirstNet with “constructing, operating, and/or maintaining” anything physical in nature that pertains to the Public Safety Broadband Network. Although, the law does not specify that FirstNet cannot create an organization either (absence of law), therefore it can be interpreted that FirstNet could develop such a plan as long as it meets the constraints forced upon it through Subtitle B, but you should note that Subtitle B only applies to FirstNet and not a State entity.

To further clarify the law designates “FirstNet” as an independent entity which defy the Federal Acquisition Requirements that have been mandated on FirstNet. 

SEC. 6204. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY.
(a)    ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established as an independent authority within the NTIA the ‘‘First Responder Network Authority’’ or ‘‘FirstNet’’.
SEC. 6206. POWERS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY.
(b) DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO DEPLOY AND OPERATE A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The First Responder Network Authority shall hold the single public safety wireless license granted under section 6201 and take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of the nationwide public safety broadband network, in consultation with Federal, State, tribal, and local public safety entities, the Director of NIST, the Commission, and the public safety advisory committee established in section 6205(a)
Under this context a State would be considered a smaller entity than a nationwide FirstNet operator, there for a State would be classified as a “Small Entity”; the term is subjective and open to interpretation. Regardless, we must not get enthralled in the clarification of anything smaller than a State driven single entity to operate a statewide network. States will be naturally limited to the geographic boundaries and legislative converge within its own constituent basis of applied laws, thus are abound by State law, State Constitutions, and subsequently the voting base of its legislative process.
It should be noted that the law is broken into two distinct sections when applying the actionable scope of responsibility as describe in the act.
For example: you will notice that Subtitle B addresses only the First Responder Organization and the Board – or FirstNet. This section specifically addresses the rules laid out for FirstNet – not a State – through the federal legislative process. It isn’t until Subtitle C of the law that we see any of the rules applied to the State, thus applying the 10thAmendment of the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

It can therefore be interpreted that any clarification of “small entity” would only be applied within the context of FirstNet’s nationwide objectives, and not the State. The same can be said for all the following inherent statue requirements laid out in Subtitle B, such as FirstNet’s reach and control outside of Subtitle B; or the powers, duties and responsibilities of FirstNet (not the State); the initial funding requirement for FirstNet; self-sustainment requirement for FirstNet; the use of collected fees and restrictions on the use of revenue apply only to FirstNet; direct offering of commercial services as applied to FirstNet — not the State.

As a demonstration of State mandates, in Subtitle B, the State, not FirstNet, is granted the ability to use revenue if specifically delivered via a public private partnership. (Sec. 6302. State and Local Implementation (g)(1)) This statement can conclude that FirstNet cannot use the Public Private Partnership method, nor the use of the revenue, but the actions of FirstNet to date demonstrate otherwise. I believe that the interpretation of the law, by FirstNet, has concluded that all of sections 6201 through 6302 apply to their mandate, thus is being voiced to all, when in fact 6201 applies to FirstNet and 6302 applies to the State.

Subtitle B—Governance of Public Safety Spectrum
Sec. 6201. Single public safety wireless network licensee.
Sec. 6202. Public safety broadband network.
Sec. 6203. Public Safety Interoperability Board.
Sec. 6204. Establishment of the First Responder Network Authority.
Sec. 6205. Advisory committees of the First Responder Network Authority.
Sec. 6206. Powers, duties, and responsibilities of the First Responder Network Authority.
Sec. 6207. Initial funding for the First Responder Network Authority.
Sec. 6208. Permanent self-funding; duty to assess and collect fees for network use.
Sec. 6209. Audit and report.
Sec. 6210. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 6211. Public safety roaming and priority access.
Sec. 6212. Prohibition on direct offering of commercial telecommunications service directly to consumers.
Sec. 6213. Provision of technical assistance.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.

The law does not address the State until we get to Subtitle C, where as the only real requirements put upon the State is the need to get its approval of the State’s “alternative plan” from the Commission and apply for the grant with the NTIA (once the Commission has granted its approval). The law does not address any requirements that are put upon the State, such as establishment of committees; restrictions on the use of revenue; restrictions on its commercialization of the network; nor the requirement to define “small entity”, these are items required for FirstNet, not the State. In fact, the law goes as far as indicating that the use of any revenue made possible through the State’s deployed “Opt-Out” solution can be derived for State purposes if performed through a “Public Private Partnership” (P3).  (Sec. 6302 (g)(1) below)
Subtitle C—Public Safety Commitments
Sec. 6301. State and Local Implementation Fund.
Sec. 6302. State and local implementation.
Sec. 6303. Public safety wireless communications research and development.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(g) PROHIBITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State that chooses to build its own radio access network shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State except directly through public-private partnerships for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State.

15. The NPRM seeks comment on when State Governors will be required to notify FirstNet, NTIA, and the Commission if they wish to opt out of the NPSBN. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to require States electing to opt out of the NPSBN to file a notification with the Commission no later than 90 days after the date they receive electronic notice of FirstNet’s final proposed plan for the State. The NPRM also seeks comment how notice should be provided and on whether an entity other than a State Governor, such as the Governor’s designee should be permitted to complete this filing requirement.
Comment: It is recommended that only the State Governor make the decision to Opt-Out or Opt-In. The impact of either solution will have lasting impacts on the legislative, economic and social development within a given State; such impacts can only be under the guidelines and polices of a sitting Governor. Imperative to the timeline associated with delivering the PSBN solution is the requirement to make quick decisions. If a State were to select a legislative process in approving any solution this would introduce a number of detrimental impacts, but most importantly the timely delivery of the PSBN solution. Any alternative approval process to the Governor would introduce potential conflicts on the timely arrival of the network, for the State, that may impact life saving measures and tools required. It is therefore recommended that a formal notice made by the Governor be adequate.
A question to the NPRM would be: who will approve the FirstNet solution? Whoever approves the FirstNet solution should be in line to approve the State solution, and vice versa, because the only competitive practices are the application of competing business models between a State P3 Opt-Out and the FirstNet nationwide carrier arrangement. The tactical and technical solution of broadband is the same for either approaches. Therefore, it’s imperative that oversight and approval be made from the Commission. Which begs to be questioned, why does the NTIA have oversight of the funding for FirstNet and the approval of State grants — especially if FirstNet is considered to be a competing business model to the State’s effort? Maybe the grant application and funding solution needs to be allocated to the Commission rather than the NTIA? It would be wise given that it is the Commission that allocates the spectrum and approves the State Opt-Out plans. Why should the NTIA, who has no say in approving the State’s Opt-Out plan, be administering the spectrum lease arrangement with a State when it is in a competitive framework with the same State? I would suggest that if a State has its plan approved by the Commission; then the Commission should allocate the spectrum lease arrangement directly with the State; as well as apply its grant funding.
16. The NPRM seeks comment on the Act’s provision that States choosing to opt out have 180 days to ‘‘develop and complete’’ requests for proposals (RFPs). In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on what showing is sufficient to demonstrate that a State has ‘‘completed’’ its RFP within the 180-day period. The NPRM further proposes that, if a State notifies the Commission of its intention to opt out of the NPSBN, the State will have 180 days from the date it provides such notification to submit its alternative plan to the Commission. The NPRM proposes to treat a State’s failure to submit an alternative plan within the 180-day period as discontinuing that State’s opt out process and forfeiting its right to further consideration of its opt-out request. The NPRM seeks comment on what an opt-out State should be required to include in its alternative plan for the plan to be considered complete for purposes of the Commission’s review.
Comment: It is observed that if a State makes the decision to Opt-Out, and submits a formal letter from the Governor, then that should suffice. As for the 180 days for the State based RFP I would think that an Executive Summary of the proposed business case be enough for the Commission to evaluate, but it should be noted that the NPRM’s request does not address the 180-days as written in the law and, in fact, is not fully interpreting its intent. For the intent of clarifying an adequate process, I would imagine that the process associated with any approval should commence under a multi-step analysis of the States objective.
For example, step one would be to submit an Executive Summary of the State’s overall business plan outlining initial information that the Commission could use to make a judgement call as to whether or not the State is moving in the right direction. Step two would be deliverables that layout the State’s plan, such as an Operations Plan, Technology and Vendor Roadmap, Revenue Projections, Market Analysis, Investor Terms and Conditions, and Interoperability Plan. Step 3 would be the submission of the overall design, roadmap of technology introduction, deployment schedule and construction timeline.
Initiating this three stage process would enable multiple points of intercession, whereas the NTIA can provide feedback and corrections, and the State can make corrections and/or reintroduce changes. Once the State has declared its desire to Opt-Out, trying to administer a concrete timeline is unnecessary and will only constrict the States ability to be successful in its deployment.
As was suggested above, the NPRM may be misinterpreting the law as written. The law states a framework of 180-days for an Opt-Out State to script, advertise and award an RFP. The law does not say that the State must have a fully completed plan for construction, maintenance and operation of the radio access network within 180-days, just a completed RFP. If the State chooses to perform a typical Opt-Out bonded broadband program, funded by taxpayer money, then the risk of RFP timeframe falls upon the State. If a State develops an RFP asking for a P3 solution, then 180-days will suffice. As was the case for New Hampshire, and now Alabama, the scope of the RFPs called for a P3 solution to the statewide deployment of Public Safety Broadband. The timeframe associated with their scripting, advertisement and award fell well within the 180-day timeframe.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(B) STATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which a Governor provides notice under subparagraph (A), the Governor shall develop and complete requests for proposals for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the radio access network within the State.

The approval process written into the law only talks about what information is required following the State’s RFP process, whereas the State would have awarded the solution to an entity that submitted a proposal for the State’s solution. It is therefore interpreted that the physical plan approval process does not actually fall under any timeline, thus a timeframe of 180-days is irrelevant per the law for the approval process and is only relevant to the framework of the RFP process.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
 (C) SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall submit an alternative plan for the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvements of the radio access network within the State to the Commission, and such plan shall demonstrate—
(I) that the State will be in compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed under section 6203; and (II) interoperability with the nationwide public safety broadband network.
Given the intent of the law, as written, it is encouraged that once a State makes its “Opt-Out” decision, and its subsequent award of an RFP, the mandate for 180-days be maintained – 180 days is a reasonable time period for an Opt-Out P3 RFP in this context. It is interpreted that the approval process between the given State and the Commission is not under any legal timeline constraints, therefore, a timeline for any detailed design or implementation schedule falls upon the purview of the State and not FirstNet or the NTIA. Any context of federally enforced timeframe for a detailed design and schedule of a State’s plan could be construed as meddling outside the law or a modification of Sec. 6302(B) (above). But, the State must still, per the law, submit its second stage deliverables for approval under a reasonable timeframe as to align with the overall nationwide implementation of the First Responder Public Safety Broadband Network.
17.a. The NPRM seeks comment on whether States should be required to file their alternative plans in PS Docket No. 16–269, and the scope and types of information that must be included in the submission.
Comment: The law does not specify a requirement for a State to submit an “alternative plan” within any given timeframe. When the State does submit its alternative plan for approval, there needs to be a framework for the NTIA to use in comparison of the primary objectives as laid out in the law (highlighted below). The nature of the NTIAs approval is to insure that the primary objectives are met within the law.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(C) SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall submit an alternative plan for the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvements of the radio access network within the State to the Commission, and such plan shall demonstrate—
(I) that the State will be in compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed under section 6203; and (II) interoperability with the nationwide public safety broadband network.

For specific needs to be addressed, that may be characteristic of one State, further objectives should be administered by the Commission, but only in the way that it enhances the chances of success for the State’s plan. Constrictions should only be made on a State-by-State basis if there is an impending technical problem that may exist between the State plan and the nationwide plan, such as fast remediation of one’s vendor solution over another; or the fast approval process of a new technology and a vendor’s solution. No restrictions should be made if the State’s plan is based on a competitive comparison between the State’s business plan and the FirstNet business plan. Any State that chooses to Opt-Out, its business plan should maintain priority over any FirstNet business plan as defined within State boundaries, i.e. business case conflict in use of customers, rights of way, rights of usage, defined users, revenue, billing practice, etc…
17.b. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether States should be allowed to file amendments or provide supplemental information to the plan once it is filed with the Commission and prior to the Commission’s decision. Should Commission staff be permitted to discuss or seek clarification of the alternative plan contents with the filer?
Comment: Absolutely. A cooperative solution should be the priority for any State based solution. There should never be a “competitive” action between FirstNet and a State in deployment of either-or solution. The FirstNet solution should be viewed as a method to deploy and maintain the nationwide solution for multi-regional purposes and thus operate on a differing level of requirements surrounding multi-regional purposes. As it pertains to physical deployment the FirstNet network would also act as a filler for those States that wish to Opt-In, mainly due to financial constraints, resource constraints, or any other constraint that the State may be facing, therefore it is encouraged that cooperation with FirstNet’s plan be considered to achieve its goals of deployment and coverage.
For any State that wishes to Opt-Out, then cooperation between the NTIA and FirstNet needs to be based on inclusion, yet not intrusive upon the State’s overall goal. FirstNet in this case would be the subservient to any State solution and thus act as a backup to any State plans that do not meet approval, or fail in the future.
17.c. If a plan is deemed sufficient for our purposes before a State awards a contract pursuant to its RFP, should the Commission condition approval on substantial compliance with the approved plan under the awarded contract, or should this be addressed by NTIA under its ‘‘ongoing’’ interoperability evaluation?
Comment: The Commission should deem any plan as sufficient if its meets the basic guidelines laid out in the law. There needs to be more clarification on what is meant by “plan” though. If the State moves forward with a Public Private Partnership that calls for a fully funded model; that specifies a requirement to build per the technical requirements of FirstNet; and the State calls for full adherence to the interoperability requirement of FirstNet, then the plan should be authorized to move to the next stage in the ongoing approval process.
A question to the NPRM would be: who will approve the FirstNet solution? Whoever approves the FirstNet solution should be in line to approve the State solution, and vice versa, because the only competitive practices are the application of competing business models between a State P3 Opt-Out and the FirstNet nationwide carrier model. The tactical and technical solution of broadband is the same for either approaches. Therefore, it’s imperative that oversight and approval be made from the Commission. Which begs to be questioned, why does the NTIA have oversight of the funding for FirstNet and the approval of State grants — especially if FirstNet is considered to be a competing business model to the State’s effort? Maybe the grant application and funding solution needs to be allocated to the Commission rather than the NTIA? It would be wise given that it is the Commission that allocates the spectrum and approves the State Opt-Out plans. Why should the NTIA, who has no say in approving the State’s Opt-Out plan, be administering the spectrum lease arrangement and the grant funding with a State when it is in a competitive framework with the same State? I would suggest that if a State has its plan approved by the Commission, then the Commission should allocate the spectrum lease arrangement directly with the State, and then approve its use of the grant allocations.
For the approval process pertaining to FirstNet and the NTIA, primarily for the grant application process if the State decides to apply for it, must be an on-going effort through an indefinite cycle of compliance as to maintain its maturity with the technology curve as to subsidize further grant funding for any modifications that integrates between the State’s network and the nationwide solution of FirstNet. Remember, the law states that a State has to submit an RFP in 180-days, the plan that is initiated within that RFP needs to be a balanced approach with the development of the technical and interoperability requirements for both the nationwide and the State solutions. Therefore, the Commission, and the State, should both expect a multi-point system of checks and balances through the approval process. A complete network can be built, meet standards and be fully operational, but that doesn’t guarantee it can be maintained and operated efficiently over the coming years; the same would go for FirstNet’s network. Checks and balances will always be an essential part of insuring the solution meets the needs of Public Safety for the foreseeable future. Plus, technology changes over time and a need to have compliant measures put in place to insure technical adherence and interoperability is maintained through the progression of the network.
18.a. The NPRM also seeks comment on who should have access to and the ability to comment on State alternative plans. In this regard, the NPRM seeks comment on the extent to which State alternative plans may contain confidential, competitive, or sensitive information or information that implicates national security. Should State plans be treated as confidential, with public notice limited to identifying which States have elected to opt out and filed an alternative plan? If so, should the Commission require such filing, and should the public be given an opportunity to comment on them?
Comment: Any information about a network, its operations, its maintenance schedule, its use of technology, and its cyber security concerns, have always been an issue when it comes to securing confidential information. The technical adoption of the network is based on commercial standards, so that is not an issue. How the technology is used and how it is adopted may be sensitive, therefore there should be restrictions on its transparency when necessary. Such initiatives of isolating sensitive from non-sensitive material is not a new topic and has been administered on many occasions throughout many different areas of industry. Both private and governmental entities have successfully deployed classified and non-classified solutions in unity for many years, thus the requirements for this should be no different. As for a State’s desire to Opt-Out, or Opt-In, should be made public given its nature of affecting constituents and taxpayers. Any specific information, such as technical specifics for a given site, its nature of use, the traffic it controls can remain confidential. A State’s business plan and its operational framework should be transparent. After all, confidentiality would not exist if it did not have non-confidential information present and vice versa. 
It should be anticipated that sensitive information control measures would be put in place as part of the States complete plan. Whether physical barriers or isolated technical capabilities, i.e. fixed virtual private networks, intrusion detection solutions, should be an inherent design of the overall plan – both State and FirstNet. The existence of private, commercial and government based solutions should be expected, thus designed as part of the overall business plan presented by either FirstNet or the State, this would include the use of classified facilities sitting adjacent to non-classified facilities for commercial services; as well as establishing clearance facilities for applicable confidential ratings in applying access levels for employee personal.
All entities, whether commercial, private or government, should be physically separated in the technical needs within the overall broadband architecture and topology, i.e. separate fiber networks, individual virtual private networks, managed virtual networks or shared network architectures. But, the baseline for the hardened infrastructure and facilities should be augmented to meet a combined network approach, i.e. same fiber right of ways, same access methodologies, shared access, combined billing applications as needed. In the end, it’s the hardened infrastructure and coverage areas that sets this network apart from the typical commercial network – the adoption of technology is the same only separated through the broadband packet and priority scheme in the solution.  
18.b. If State plans were filed publicly, would the Commission’s existing rules allowing parties to request confidential treatment for their filings provide adequate protection of sensitive information? Alternatively, given the likelihood of sensitive information and the limited scope of the Commission’s review of State plans under section 6302(e)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, should the Commission limit the parties that are entitled to review and comment on such plans? Should comment be limited to specific issues?
Comment: The adoption of classification ratings for any material deemed sensitive should be taken in stride. The completed plan for both the State and FirstNet, should be inclusive of a classification and clearing house for control of sensitive information and access throughout all layers of user implementation. Some areas of confidential information may be deemed very sensitive in the eyes of one individual, but not in the eyes of another; therefore, the State’s plan, and FirstNet’s plan, should be inclusive of such needs and requirements for all parties that may use the network.
For example: commercial entities will have requirements for insuring the safe storage and access controls to private and personal information, as well as revenue controls; for a Government agency it may be a clearance house of access controls adapted to individual employees as to how much information they can have access too. Each entity will have its own needs and requirements thus the development of control points for sensitive information should be applied throughout all stages and areas of the overall solution. The adoption of sensitive protocols will remain an on-going exercise depending on the nature of the user. As for the initial deployment of a State’s plan, or the FirstNet plan, a baseline design of controls should be administered through its hardening characteristic as well as the networks initial user entities, both private and public, with the notion that such controls would, could, and should be changed depending on the makeup of its user base of requirements and the advancement of the technology.
19.a. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether FirstNet and/or NTIA should be allowed access and the ability to comment to the Commission on State plans within a defined comment period. Assuming that FirstNet and NTIA are afforded a right to comment on State plans, should States have the right to respond to such comments?
Comment: Comments should be made available from any and all sources, so yes the FirstNet and the NTIA should be allowed to comment on any plans – as would any individual, private, commercial or government entity.
19.b. What rights, if any, should States have to review or comment on alternative plans submitted by other States?
Comment: Comments should be made available from any and all sources, so yes the FirstNet and the NTIA should be allowed to comment on any plans – as would any individual, private, commercial or government entity.
19.c. What other procedures are appropriate for the Commission’s review of such plans? How can the Commission most appropriately ensure that it has heard all ‘‘evidence pertinent and material to the decision’’?
Comment: It is recommended that the Commission utilize the standard approach, as this comment period uses, to collecting comments on each and every plan. Comments should be made available from any and all sources, so yes the FirstNet and the NTIA should be allowed to comment on any plans – as would any individual, private, commercial or government entity. The Commission should establish a fixed timed period for Reponses and then, following the closing date for comments, only consider further comments based on severity to overall outcome of success.
20. The NPRM proposes that each alternative plan submitted to the Commission should receive expeditious review. The NPRM proposes to establish a ‘‘shot clock’’ for Commission action on alternative plans to provide a measure of certainty and expedience to the process. The NPRM seeks comment on what an appropriate shot clock period would be.

Comment: If a State should decide to Opt-Out, then the 180-day cycle begins for its creation, release and award of the State’s RFP. As for the consolidation of the approved plan from the State on its responses to its RFP, there will be a number of unexpected variables that will impact the State’s alternative plan to FirstNet. For example: amount of industry resources available to propose solutions; amount of available contracting resources in the market; lead times for inventory; installation cycles that depend on market demand and the OEMs; and many other forces that will impact a State’s need to DBOM their solution. The broadband space is a battered space that has seen drastic reductions in available contracting companies and will require some recovery time to get up to par to what will be demanded in this new market. It is recommended that the NTIA and the Commission full grasp the impact of these external impacts when considering a State’s alternative plan and the time required to oversee a number of simultaneous deployments in multiple States.  
21. The NPRM seeks comment on the standard against which alternative State plans will be evaluated, specifically with respect to the Act’s requirements that alternative plans demonstrate: (1) that the State will be in compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed under section 6203, and (2) interoperability with the nationwide public safety broadband network.
Comment: Reiterating the law’s requirement to establish a fixed standard of technical adherence, approved vendors, and interoperability should suffice. Although, what those standards are still needs to be defined and published in a way that a State’s alternative plan can follow. It is highly encouraged that the FirstNet Technical Advisory Committee establish those requirements as soon as possible, else the Commission risks the forced individual solutions of each and every State.
22. Under the first prong, the NPRM seeks comment on the utilization of RAN-related requirements specified in the minimum technical interoperability requirements. Specifically, the NPRM proposes that review under this prong would include requirements (1)–(3), (7)– (10), (20)–(25), (29), (39), (41)–(42) from the Board Report, as documented in Appendix B of the NPRM.
Comment: Define Prong. Reiterating the law’s requirement to establish a fixed standard of technical adherence, approved vendors, and interoperability should suffice. Although, what those standards are still needs to be defined and published in a way that a State’s alternative plan can follow. It is highly encouraged that the FirstNet Technical Advisory Committee establish those requirements as soon as possible, else the Commission risks the forced individual solutions of each and every State.
23. Under the second prong, the NPRM proposes a broader view than the first prong in demonstrating ‘‘interoperability’’ with the NPSBN, but still limited to the RAN. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on the role of the Commission to independently and impartially evaluate whether alternative plans comply with the interoperability related requirements established by FirstNet, and suggests that the Commission does not have the ability to impose network policies or interoperability requirements on FirstNet.
Comment: Define Prong. The definition of RAN is a Radio Access Network. The approach in defining such a solution is too generalized and needs to be further defined. As it stands today, a State that decides to Opt-Out to build its own RAN, is in fact building the entire ecosystem associated with a RAN, i.e. fiber transport, backhaul solutions, radio tower solutions, access solutions, traffic monitoring solutions, billing support engines, account management systems, inventory tracking systems, application support and datacenter solutions, and even maintenance schedules. All of these aspects and requirements are all considered part of a RAN solution.
Interoperability is also vague in its interpretation, but it is assumed by the term “interoperability” we are talking about specific radio communications between elements, units, and agencies that will utilize the broadband service no matter what’s its geographic location may be. If the term is being compared to systems and equipment, then the real term is integration, or integrated solutions. Given that the entire network will be based on Band 14 spectrum, then interoperability will be inherently achieved. The ecosystem design for application interoperability will be required, but only once the platform exist, under relevant standards, can the applications be developed and insured “interoperability” capabilities in its adoption. Insuring that handsets, applications and IoT (Internet of Things) are manufactured with Band-14 chipsets is another area of interoperable assurance.
Policies are an organizational tool used to create frameworks of procedures and guidelines that organizations can use to accomplish their defined mission. Being that an Opt-Out State will be in control of its own governance structure while executing its alternative plan, it will be inefficient for FirstNet to have any say in its operations – this may be applied vice versa as well. The mission of FirstNet, and its established policies, need not be created to conflict with State based solutions either.
24. The NPRM seeks comment on the view that if the Commission disapproves a plan, the opportunity for a State to conduct its own RAN deployment will be forfeited and FirstNet ‘‘shall proceed in accordance with its proposed plan for that State.’’
Comment: Given the timeline associated with creating and deploying the entire Public Safety Broadband Solution, there will be ample time to isolate and develop alternative plans that fit the needs of individual States, especially those Opt-Out States. Any effort to try and create a multi-state buildout will be faced with a daunting task of resources and tools available to support such an effort. It is theoretically in possible to create a simultaneous deployment covering multiple States. The political impact alone will force an expanded timeline due to each State’s process of approvals and use of taxpayer money to help augment such an exercise.  
It would be to the benefit of the Commission, the State, and the taxpayers that alternative solutions be developed on independent timelines associated with individual State requirements. The objective is to get an agreement on what is best for Public Safety, the State and the nationwide solution, but most importantly the local First Responders. It is therefore recommended that the statement of ‘‘shall proceed in accordance with its proposed plan for that State’’ is far reaching and beyond the Federal Governments reach to imply that it will intercede in a State’s effort to build its public safety broadband solution.
25. The NPRM seeks comment on the view that the Commission’s approval of a State opt-out plan as meeting the interoperability criteria in section 6302(e)(3)(C) of the Act would not create a presumption that the State plan meets any of the criteria that NTIA is responsible for evaluating under section 6302(e)(3)(D) of the Act.
Comment: If a State decides to Opt-Out, and the State’s plan meets the requirements laid out in the law, and the Commission approves the plan, then the NTIA must approve grant allocations.  If a State decides to apply for the grant allocations offered to the State in the law, then I do not see where the NTIA would be in a position to override anything that the Commission institutes, especially when it was the Commission that approved the release of spectrum to the First Responder Network Authority. By doing so the NTIA would risk the reassignment of the spectrum to the State per the FCC directly, which may be a better solution anyway. Contractually I do not see anything the NTIA could direct to the State outside of the Commissions oversight of the technical requirements and the interoperability standards.
It should be noted that the State that decides to Opt-Out does not have to apply for the grant allocation offered under the law that subsequently would be administered by the NTIA. If a State decides not to apply, then there will be no jurisdiction of the NTIA in the State’s solution and thus only the approval of the Commission will be required. If a State decides to apply for the grant, then the NTIA should not be allowed to constrict a State’s right to create its own solution, unless the State’s solution for governance controls and operational controls are granted, by the State, to the FirstNet organization under the NTIA. In the end the overall theme is to create a robust infrastructure to support broadband.
26. The NPRM seeks comment on how the Commission should document its decisions to approve or disapprove State opt-out requests under the statutory criteria. Should it issue a written decision or order explaining the basis for each decision, or would it be sufficient to provide more limited notice of approval or disapproval in each case without a detailed explanation?
Comment: Some form of formal acknowledgment with an explanation and steps to obtain approval should be granted. Enough information should be garnered from the response so that the State can correct, respond and mitigate its conditions. The objective should not be to be at arms-length in the discussion, but rather inclusive as to meet each sides requirements.

FirstNet scares the Opt-Out States by saying they will not be able to meet the 180-day timeframe to put their plan together? What a bunch of bullarky!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
You know I hear a lot of talk, and see a lot of apprehension, about this 90, plus 180-day thing for a State to get its plan together. I don’t know where all the hoopla is coming from, but the law doesn’t state anything about a State has to get its entire plan together within that time period. Here is what the law states:
HR 3620 The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 (Feb 28, 2012)

SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(B) STATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which a Governor provides notice under subparagraph (A), the Governor shall develop and complete requests for proposals for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the radio access network within the State.

You can see that the law only says that a State has to have its RFP completed for the construction, maintenance and operation of the network. Nowhere in the law does it say that a State has to have its complete plan done — it just says you have to have your RFP done — and done so within the 180-days. If you don’t know what an RFP is its essentially a request made by the State for a proposal, thus the term “RFP”.
Now the State has two options to choose from when considering its RFP course; it can use a traditional taxpayer funded bonded program, where it puts together a complete of listing of technical specifications, requirements, and cost obligations, that a responding party would propose a solution for. These types of RFPs are quite common in the vertical industries, especially as they relate to large-scale construction jobs that have little return on the investment, so the government would support its development and charge the taxpayers for the bill. In this case of the government sponsored program the State, and its taxpayers, would fund the program, but when it comes to building out a broadband network, that can get rather expensive and the State is in no position to act as a broadband company.
The second solution is through the use of a Public Private Partnership or P3. The law even says that a State can use the P3 model to benefit from the revenue stream that the P3 creates.
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(g) PROHIBITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State that chooses to build its own radio access network shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State except directly through public-private partnerships for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State.
In a P3, the Myers Model that is, the State is a member of the investment consortium who funds and owns a newly created broadband company within the State. Although, in this case the State, thus its taxpayers, are not required to bring any cash to the deal, but rather equate their ownership stake to rights-of-ways, land, and the use of the spectrum. The investment parties of the deal are the ones that fund the build and its long-term operations. You should further note, the law specifically states that FirstNet, not the State, must be completely self-funded and self-sustaining through an independent entity.  With the execution of the States use of their own P3, the State actually creates a completely self-funded and self-sustaining solution, whereas the proposed FirstNet model – to date – does not. But, FirstNet’s RFP has not been awarded yet, so we will see.  Given my knowledge and experience in telecom business models, it is highly unlikely that we will see such a model offered to FirstNet.
Therefore, the law does not state that the State must have a fully completed plan for construction, maintenance and operation of the radio access network within 180-days, just a completed RFP. If the State chooses to perform a typical Opt-Out bonded broadband program, funded by the State taxpayer, then the risk of the RFP timeframe falls upon the State. If a State develops an RFP asking for a P3 solution, then 180-days will suffice. As was the case for New Hampshire, and now Alabama, the scope of these RFPs call for a fully funded and self-sustaining P3 solution for a complete statewide deployment of Public Safety Broadband – covering all the State. The timeframe associated with their scripting, advertisement, and award, fell well within the 180-day timeframe.
But what the hell do I know I’m…
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – The Bevin Boondoggle of Kentucky? Gov Bevin "fully backs" Kentucky’s own fiber boondoggle?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Governor Bevin of Kentucky backs the “fully” the downsized Kentucky Wired program to deliver fiber to the eastern counties of Kentucky – but is it doomed to fail? Has the Governor been led astray of false profits selling snake oil? Or has he been dealing with amateurs? 
“The bulk of the project’s capital (about $271 million) is coming from the sale of bonds, which were sold with the understanding that $11 million annually in federal dollars to connect schools with broadband would flow to the project.
But a conflict-of-interest issue that arose when former finance cabinet deputy secretary Steve Rucker became head of the Kentucky Communications Network Authority — he has since resigned — resulted in the state abandoning the bid process for that money.” (WatchDog.org)
Although, getting fiber to the rural areas is an important task, the idea to deliver it under taxpayer money is a bad idea. The networks plan for design calls for “Pole Attachments” for more than 80% of all the fiber installed. The issue with this is that a majority of State or Federal Government agencies, that require a cyber secure infrastructure, will not be able to use a pole attached network. Why would we take a step back?
Let’s say an electric coop out in the eastern regions signs up to use this fiber network and puts most of its command and control of the electrical grid running through this new fiber infrastructure. What happens when an Islamist Terrorist decides to take a shotgun, or a truck, to take out a bunch of poles along the highway, or an isolated country road, where this fiber will be hung? At 50 yards you can take out a Pill Box hanging on the hung fiber and totally disport the network itself. With a truck…well you get the idea. What happens to the hospitals or the schools? How about all the local business and economy? How do you secure the fiber from encased fiber intrusion tools, that resemble pill boxes, and are used to clandestinely collect all the data being transmitted on the open fiber sections of the network? Who is going to protect such an infrastructure?
Once this issue is truly addressed then the State will see that using taxpayer money to fund a non-securable platform will fail. Who wants to put all their revenue operations, electrical grid or hospital patient records online using an open fiber network on pole attachments? The alternative to correcting such a design defect is to bury the fiber; install intrusion detection gear along points of the network; secure fiber splice points with video surveillance and access controls; create and resource the operations center to monitor and respond to any threats both physically and digitally; isolate traffic patterns with protected virtual network paths; and yes, go and replace any defective gear that may break down. Did you know that fiber has a 20-year life? Did you know that exposed fiber on pole attachments have less than a 10-year life? Who will maintain and upgrade the fiber in 10 years?
Understanding that the alternative will be very costly to maintain, means that the existing business model the State is currently using for its fiber deployment will not survive. The State essentially is falling into the same botched business model that failed the real fiber ISP players in the same market – without the paid and fixed tenant clients, there is not enough revenue to capitalize the build out, thus the wasteful spending of taxpayer money. But that’s not even the half of it.
Had the State combined its efforts as part of the Public Safety Broadband Network, an effort the State will be required to build anyway, would have attracted way more customers, thus had enough revenue to sustain its capital requirements. As it stands though, the hardening requirements for the Public Safety Broadband Network, or any cyber initiative, will require a hardened solution that will not allow for accessible points of entry that can’t be controlled, i.e. pole attached fiber networks. What I’m saying is that Governor Bevin is possibly being influenced by some ill-informed subject matter experts that is in fact installing a fiber network that will be useless in the future, thus a waste of taxpayer money and the State’s time. Nothing worse for telecom than building a fiber network that will be useless in the eyes of the constituents and the State’s hardened requirements for securing the network. “Just another boondoggle” is what they will say.
I do offer a solution though. Come clean and abandon the fiber network and rope it into the State’s Public Safety Broadband effort by enlisting a true Public Private Partnership to deliver a State a fully funded (no taxpayer money) and self-sustaining broadband solution that will meet all user requirements at all levels. Take a look at the recent RFP for the State of Alabama – a perfect example of what you should be doing.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — What was New Hampshire thinking!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

There has been a lot of speculation around New Hampshire and whether it is Opt-Out or Opt-in. New Hampshire is getting a lot of press because it took the initiative to get out front of all the hoopla surrounding Opt-Out and Opt-In and has already taken the step towards understanding the Opt-Out alternative. This is all good. But, New Hampshire fell into this “comparison scenario” between Opt-Out versus Opt-In, out of sure luck. The fact is New Hampshire is just a microcosm of the larger picture of States that understand commonsense has to take over at some point in time.

New Hampshire’s effort from the beginning was to Opt-Out, but things got heated once their plans were known. The majority of stakeholders within the State wanted to Opt-Out so that it can take control of its own future, especially knowing that the interest would fall to the larger States once things got moving. It’s a good move for New Hampshire, now they just need to stick with their decision and move forward, but here came politics to ruin the day. Waiting for FirstNet’s solution is no solution at all – I wish it were — but things didn’t go as planned for FirstNet.
Once FirstNet had the rug pulled out from under their original plan to partner with a large carrier, FirstNet was forced to recreate an “objectives based RFP” – something they should have done since day one. But, moving forward at this stage of the game confused the masses, thus it became apparent that FirstNet was not going to produce anything within the near future that could accommodate the States – a fact that has not changed. In response to their RFP they received few bids, bids that do not align with what they need to do. How do I know this? I don’t even have to know who the respondents are to know that there is no business case that FirstNet can create that will enable it to become a “national carrier”. Plus, it’s a given fact that there will be States who will never have a federal answer to a local problem. I’m afraid FirstNet lost credibility at the start with its carrier plan; then lost support for its ability to deliver a solution the States could use; now they have lost the ability to take part in a State’s Opt-Out plan. Having the States accumulate all their known stakeholders, assets and resources then put them into a database does not produce a business model. 
New Hampshire is a perfect example of what will happen if FirstNet does not take part in a State’s plan by allowing the State to take the lead on its deployment of FirstNet. I helped respond to the Opt-Out RFP that New Hampshire put out. Nowhere in the process, in the RFP, or in the talks during our presentation, was there any discussion about how FirstNet was taking part in the States effort – outside of technical interoperability. Even when we got into discussions about the shareholder arrangements for funding parties, or the revenue distribution for the State, FirstNet was never mentioned, thus will not be part of the future plans if the State wishes to Opt-Out – something FirstNet really needs to consider. Positioning itself with the States is the only way FirstNet, the organization, will survive. 
Another great example of what I’ve wrote about in the past, is how New Hampshire has timed its Opt-Out comparison with the high risk impact of politics. There will be an administration change for New Hampshire shortly with a new Governor, it may go Red for the first time in a long time.
“New Hampshire has had a divided government since 2011. The office of governor of New Hampshire has been largely controlled by Republicans for the past century, though Democrats have held the governorship since 2005. However, the November election may be Republicans’ best chance in several years to win back the governor’s seat—incumbent Governor Maggie Hassan’s (D) decision to run for the U.S. Senate in 2016 has left the governor’s seat open, potentially ending the decade-long Democratic control of the office.” (BallotPedia)
In past writings I warned of the impending presidential elections. If you think New Hampshire is facing a tough political fight, imagine what it’s going to be like for FirstNet in 2017 with a new presidential administration hell bent of cutting spending and reorganizing the Federal Governments intentions for the foreseeable future. I can guarantee you that FirstNet will be one of those “boondoggles” that a new administration will take a close look at.  Any State facing the same situation as New Hampshire should understand that if you don’t take action now, and are committed to waiting for FirstNet, you may be waiting awhile.
Any State that thinks the Opt-In solution is the only way for them, then they will be forced to help fund their portion of FirstNet’s buildout in their State – don’t take my word for it read the law below. That demand for taxpayer funding will draw an enormous amount of criticism from its local constituents, especially when the State is facing shortfalls in funding. Such criticism will further the strain on the political situation for opting into the FirstNet solution, especially when opting out of the solution will enable the State to gain so much more. What happens if FirstNet starts to get its own political problems due to the general election — which runs a high probability of happening? After all, who doesn’t want to create more local jobs, bring in more revenue for the State, and provide a boost to the local economy for the rural areas?
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
If you decide to Opt-In:
(e) STATE NETWORK
“the First Responder Network Authority shall provide to the Governor of each State, or his designee—
(A) notice of the completion of the request for proposal process;
(B) details of the proposed plan for buildout of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network in such State; and
(C) the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA. “
The fact remains that if a State Opts-In it will have to pay its portion of FirstNet’s build in their own State. If you Opt-Out you get to control your own buildout, your own contractors, you get a truly funded solution and you get to reap the benefits of added revenue to a State’s coffers, plus you get to apply for your portion of the $6.5 Billion left in the FirstNet budget. If you are a State Governor, and not trying to Opt-Out, then you may be played the fool and be overtaken by the political quagmire to follow.
In the end, what New Hampshire has done is a great thing for FirstNet, even if they don’t feel so. I can guarantee you that it will be better for the State and anyone with commonsense and the guts to stand up and take charge should be commended for doing so.
But who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet — The State of New Hampshire just picked a proprietary solution for its Opt-Out Public Safety alternative to FirstNet?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

A lot of people don’t understand what “spectrum arbitrage” is. You can do a search on something called “bandwidth on demand” (BoD). The concept of spectrum-arbitrage and BoD are basically the same thing, except Rivada’s Arbitrage platform switches and allocates unused RF signaling and splits the spectrum up so that users who do not have priority can use the portion of the network that is not being used – at the RF layer – so they say. The problem is that the Arbitrage solution is highly technical and introduces an enormous amount of complexities to the physical layered solution and initiates a highly sophisticated multipart business model requirement. What happens if the adjoining States who decide not to deploy the proprietary Arbitrage solution? What happens to the clients on those adjoining solutions? Does this mean that a local or regional carrier has to augment his own infrastructure to account for the difference in interfaces between an adjoining State?  How does a State that doesn’t employ the proprietary platform have its billing engine interface with a State that is proprietary? To me its counterintuitive to the development of a good network architecture based on a proprietary solution. I think we saw the same thing with Motorola and the LMR solutions a few years back, didn’t we? If the typical off-the-shelf-solution works exceedingly great, why add another proprietary layer of complexity to the mix? It just doesn’t make any sense. The plain truth is that it doesn’t meet the requirements of the law.

SEC. 6206. POWERS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY. (B) promote competition in the equipment market, including devices for public safety communications, by requiring that equipment for use on the network be — (i) built to open, non-proprietary, commercially available standards;
The real question is – acting as a sales person of a product line – how do I get my proprietary, non-standard, solution into the overall deal? It’s simple actually, you just mask its involvement as part of your “private” side of the Public Private Partnership you are promoting. Through the “private” side of the deal, I would introduce my product as a means for commercial assurance to guarantee spectrum to private entities, thus isolating the Public Safety spectrum. The problem though is that you are still introducing a “proprietary solution” to the spectrum allocation to the State, which is the basis for the law. In short, there is no way around implementing a proprietary solution to the Public Safety Broadband Network without breaking the law. There is a reason that the law states “built to open, non-proprietary, commercially available standards” and that reason is quite simple – the spectrum belongs to First Responders.
If we split the spectrum at its core, all we are doing is taking spectrum away from Public Safety and giving slices of it to others– thus the carriers creating the nine-tenths of the law scenario (let alone security issues). Plus, who wants to be the first in the Nation to deploy a proprietary spectrum solution? What happens if this proprietary solution is not well accepted by others? What happens if it technically fails? Who will be responsible for developing a new architecture to account for those technical issues? Who is going to have to pay the adjoining States that need to interface with a proprietary solution? Who will account for the losses if the overall business model fails? Who in the end will be held responsible? Maybe this is why the law was written the way it was written? The law was written to protect this allocation of spectrum to Public Safety.
A few years back there was a far less complex solution to using the underutilized bandwidth within a packetized network. The BoD (bandwidth on demand) solution became a proven method of delivering broadband to end users, but the offering never really caught on. Why you ask? Well because everyone can get their own fiber and their own transport network without the hassles of worrying about if they will have bandwidth available that day.  Plus, the traditional commercial networks of yesteryear were born on the TDM based solutions. The Time Division Multiplex solution was designed to carry 32-bit based traffic customized for voice. With the introduction of packetized networks, the TDM framework was not properly adjusted for the larger 64-1400-bit packet solutions. Plus, the TDM solution uses 30% of its 32-bit frame for call control protocols, thus was ill suited for the packetized requirements. In layman’s terms, the carriers used a network that was designed for voice and the internet needed packet networks. Then came the FDM solution.
In actuality the first DARPA and SUN (Stanford University Network) UNIX based networks were based on FDM, but when the commercial voice service came along they forced their standards onto the Internet, thus forced the architecture of TDM onto the market. Why? Because there was still more money to be made in voice services back then. The fact is 15 years ago BoD was a great idea for those small to mid-size players to which access to broadband is a steep cost to carve out – we’re talking small level bandwidth solutions – but reality of access service costs today is minimalistic and has no real bearing on the outcome, thus the demise of the Bandwidth-on-Demand using TDM frameworks. Ultimately it was a ploy to utilize the lost overheads in the TDM network to improve profit margins. When it came to spectrum, and still holds true today, the larger wireless players all paid for their own spectrum rights, so why would they need the split the RF signals on their platforms, thus the demise of any needed RF spectrum-on-demand solution– Arbitrage? What we face today is a repackaged gift of 15 years ago that is being peddled to the Public Safety market as a must have to save their priority status when using their own spectrum. It’s like getting a gift for Christmas from 15 years ago from Aunt Bev and then repacking it for Uncle Tom for this Christmas.  
With the amount of “conceptually’ unlimited bandwidth in fiber, and the amount of spectrum allocated for FirstNet, any other method of spectrum usage just introduces unnecessary complexities that can be unmanageable for a large network – such as a statewide or national deployment of broadband. Public Safety should be using its spectrum like a traditional carrier uses its spectrum – they use it all for themselves. Any secondary users of the network will be prioritized and isolated to packet based network architectures. The only real customers you will find in the spectrum market will be large carrier type organizations, who undoubtedly already have their own spectrum rights and just want to add more to their holdings. There is way more money to be made in controlling the entire band of spectrum for Public Safety itself and selling its available packet solutions to second or third parties, thus funding First and Secondary Responders for the foreseeable future. One sure way for Public Safety to lose their spectrum rights, would be to introduce private commercial operations that has way more intrinsic desire to expand profit services to its user base, thus forcing the Public Safety out of the picture in the long-run. The question will be asked later on, who has more need, and who supports more Americans? Following that question is when the politicians will take over.
One final thought; splitting the spectrum and allocating it to third parties, presents a major security problem and will require a large amount of funding to secure its foundation. Who is going to pay for the added requirement of securing an already overly complex cyber security mandate? How to isolate spectrum intrusion when you have all your commercial and private users on the same spectrum? What if the adjoining State doesn’t want to split up its spectrum under such a solution, how do we justify the secure connection between the two?
But what do I know I’m….
Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet — State of New Hampshire selects Rivada for its Opt-Out solution…..but why?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
So the very first Opt-Out RFP hit the streets with New Hampshire back in January. Just recently the board, based on points, decided to go with Rivada over Parsons. This is a remarkable thing being that Parsons had only 4 weeks to respond to a bid to which Rivada spent a number of months massaging. Parsons still came in second beating Motorola and a few others. Beat Motorola! That is a big thing for this market. Remember Motorola is an industry leader in North America when it comes to the Public Safety market – they have 98% of the space. This isn’t the first time I’ve beaten Moto though. There were two other times as well and they were all about the Public Safety Broadband Network.
Who is Parsons? Parsons is what the market calls an EPC – Engineer, Procure and Construction – company. Parsons is usually associated with large-scale engineering and construction projects around the world; construction projects that are delivered with large Public Private Partnership arrangements. Why would an EPC be the best positioned entity for deploying the Public Safety Broadband Network as well as delivering a true Public Private Partnership?
Parsons does not promote a product, such as a radio, handset, or a “spectrum arbitrage solution”. By not producing a product this puts Parsons at a distinct advantage – the advantage of remaining non-committal to any product offering. By staying non-committal to any vendor’s solution, they are open to any solution that fits best for the client. In this case, for the PSBN network, we work with all vendors and have been working with them for years now. What about carrier relationships, don’t you have to be an OEM that works for the carriers to make any headway?
Parsons, which might surprise some, does a lot of work for the carriers. The EPC is best suited for the carrier space when it comes to the needed upgrades, new installs, large project road-mapping, and construction. So, naturally fitting into the build-out of the PSBN nationwide is not new to Parsons, especially when deploying large-scale Public Private Partnerships.
Parsons brings something that others cannot bring – a long history of constructing large complex builds; most importantly they bring direct P3 experience from around the world. What everyone needs to understand is that more than 80% of the Public Safety Broadband Network will be all about the civil and related construction elements – something Parsons is well suited for. The actual amount of OEM equipment in the PSBN will be less than 3% of the entire capital program to build it, so why put all the risk on an OEM to be the prime for the build – OEM being someone like a Rivada. Rivada’s primary focus is on selling its products — not acting like an OEM. In fact, when an OEM says they can build the PSBN solution, all they are doing is adding cost to the budget by layering pass-thru partners as subs. Any additional costs to a P3 increases the amount of risk associated with the investment needed to fund the entire program. Parsons literally works on a daily basis with Billions of dollars in P3 funding models around the world. I can guarantee you that Rivada, Motorola, Nokia, Fujitsu, Ericsson or any other OEM provider has never even come close to working with the P3 model, especially in North America where the P3 model has never been used in the telecom or broadband space before.
An OEM creates and sells equipment that will be used on the network to power technology. With that product comes the need to develop new products, enhance existing products and manufacturer the tools to run those products. The life-cycle of an OEM is never-ending and cyclical in nature, something that Rivada, Ericsson, Nokia and others are akin to – why? Because they are in the business of selling products, not construction services. Nothing wrong with that, but for an Opt-Out State it could mean, and historically has meant, disaster for building out broadband. So, if the development and construction of a broadband solution, for an Opt-Out State, is relevant to >80% in civil and construction related services, why would you choose a vendor to build your solution who is responsible for <3%?
As with any EPC they focus on what’s known as multipliers. Multipliers are a number that divides the overhead and profit against the direct labor of a project. For the Parsons market that falls between a 2.5 to 3.5 region for any given project – really depends on the client, the location and the economy. For an OEM that same multiplier approach is in the ballpark of 5-7..why? Because you have to include all the product development, product management, warehousing, manufacturing process and the sales approach as part of the overheads – this is why OEMs don’t compete in the services market. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just a different market and a different business approach. One thing is for sure…you don’t want to be applying 5-7 multipliers to a project where you can get 2.5.-3.5 multipliers. Another fact is that an OEM who takes on the expertise to build and fund your network, will still need a Parsons anyway, because that’s what Parsons does for a living — construction. What the OEM does is position itself to be the decision maker, takes on the primary risk (80% of the scope of the program thus the majority of the profit anyway, but without the risk. But who really takes on the risk of a fledgling telecom model that has failed in the past and will fail in the future? The State!
So let’s say you are New Hampshire and you choose to go with an OEM solution, the Rivada solution, what does that mean to the State?  First off the State may be blinded by the idea that the Rivada solution will pay for everything, which may be the case, but that means somebody will have to pay for it. There are two possibilities the taxpayers, or the private investors. What’s wrong with that? The fact remains that you are still paying for a much costlier build due to the layered parties all adding their overheads and costs to the sum solution. With higher costs means you have to sell those higher costs to either the taxpayers or the private investors. But, let’s go with the investor path.
In comparison to the state taxpayers, the investors are definitely no slackers when it comes to investing their own money – or their shareholder’s money. The investor will not invest in an opportunity that costs too much, detracts from their long-term gain, and carries too much risk. For a Parsons solution the risk is much lower in that you have the party that is responsible for more than 80% of the overall projects profit running your program; which equates to lower cost due to the fact that you are not layering other partner’s costs on top; and ultimately can contribute a much cheaper multiplier rate to the entire program. This is the case in point for why Parsons beats Motorola in these bids – Parsons simply comes in costing less while better positioned to take on the control and the risk of the entire solution.
Why didn’t Parsons beat Rivada though? The solution submitted to New Hampshire was put together in 4 short weeks – that includes model conception, content creation, printing, corrections, edits, approvals, then shipment. The overall proposal (the meat of the proposal) was rushed and put together within a week. The fact remains that had Parsons had more time to go over the proposal, and really look at the solution presented, they would have beaten Rivada as well.  By perfecting the approach, Parsons will insure an unbeatable approach on the next one.  
In the end, why would you want an overpriced OEM leading your program to install statewide broadband network who will only turn around and hire the same EPC firms to do the majority of the work; an OEM with no P3 experience at all; an OEM whose prime directive is to sell their proprietary equipment over anything else; an OEM whose business model does not align with the Public Safety Broadband Network’s future; an OEM who only increases the risk, cost and complexity to the entire solution? Why would you risk an entire statewide buildout of a Public Safety critical infrastructure, whose sole purpose is to insure the safety and wellbeing of First Responders and the public, to a product driven company who has no experience in designing, building, operating and maintaining a broadband network let alone no experience in Public Private Partnerships?
But what do I know I’m ……
Just some guy and a blog…….