Author: drmikemyers

Is FirstNet a big waste of time? Does Public Safety need FirstNet?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I wanted to highlight some of the difficulties in the below strategy of FirstNet’s RFP and what it will face if they pursue a one network build for the entire Nation, most specifically the lack of consideration of the States, the monetization of the spectrum and commercialization of the Public Safety’s spectrum. I can only raise the bigger concerns I have, in that there are too many issues to highlight in one blog entry. 

Taken from FirstNet’s procurement page:
Comprehensive Network Solution Draft RFP:

The Comprehensive Network Solution Draft RFP may solicit offers to develop a comprehensive network solution that possibly includes the core and all RAN components, backhaul, devices, network infrastructure, deployable capabilities and maintenance to fully function as an operational wireless public safety LTE network. This solution would potentially include “in kind” or monetary value provided by the offeror in consideration for secondary use of FirstNet’s excess network capacity. The value provided for excess network capacity, time to market, first responder performance objectives, and rural coverage, among many other factors, will be considerations in this potential approach. (FirstNet Website)
In the context of FirstNet deploying a one network programmatic approach, which this will only benefit the largest contractor, a contractor who may not be the best suited, but this isn’t the worst of it; why we over complicate these things is beyond me. The bigger issue with this strategy still does not address how Rural America will be covered. Partnering with the commercial carriers, to build the entire network, still, will not meet the needs of funding the build out to the rural areas. This strategy screams taxpayer funding all the way, and I can almost guarantee that it will be heavily subsidized by the State, not the Feds. This strategy also risks total defunding if we have a change in administration.
The framework of this strategy illustrates their intention to bring in a commercial carrier to build the network, where as they anticipate that the commercial carriers will pay for the build – “in kind” – which means something for nothing without any real justification or incentive for it’s future outcome. If I were a carrier today, and I am avoiding the build to the rural areas of the Nation because the ROI isn’t justified, why would I think that partnering with the Federal Government would accomplish the need, a need that isn’t essential to the success or future of my existing business model?
The solution is broken up into two parts: Capital Expenditures (capex) and Operational Expenditures (opex).  The capex spend will be a tight thing to concur in that no amount of investment in the capital construction of assets will justify a market turn for the carrier to refocus resources away from their long-term plans of content services. There is a reason the carriers are moving away from owning the assets. One of the reasons is because their existing market is much larger than FirstNet and is shrinking everyday which also happens to be core to their current revenue generation. Another reason is because the market dynamics have changed, where as, the carriers need to re-home their products to the data generation else they will not survive in the future, that means the current carrier market needs to go up against new players like Google, Netflix, Apple and the likes. The battle the carriers are facing today is a much more important topic than answering the heroic call of building out FirstNet without any assurances of its success in revenue generation – seems pretty flimsy to me.
Another topic of concern is the opex portion. If the network will cost $60 Billion to build, who will pay for the $6 Billion annually to operate it? The carriers have enough on their plate to run their own operations let alone FirstNet’s needs. Why would I divert my energy and resources to try and concur a FirstNet business model that is built within a House of Cards? It just doesn’t make sense. If I were a carrier my first thoughts are to grab the spectrum, if I can just tie this whole solution up in the process and the legal system long enough, then the spectrum will come back up when FirstNet fails to meet its objectives, then the context of the conversation will change to “I told you so”, or, “give it to those that are in the business of selling broadband today”. Why invest my Billion’s into a FirstNet plan that will fail in its current approach? All I have to do is wait-it-out and get the valuable spectrum for next to nothing, or free? My execution plan would be to stonewall this program and tie it up to the point it fails on its own merits.
It has been more than 2 years since FirstNet has been created, their current course, and mindset, needs to be changed or this will be a big waste of time. I’m confident in Sue Swenson, but I also fear that the penetration of the carriers has convoluted the thought process with fear and intimidation to the point that the existing FirstNet members don’t know what is real and what isn’t. The fact is this is only a broadband network, nothing else. Yes, it’s a big new market, but all you have to do is plant the first seed. Just plant the seed and fixate the growth on a sound business model of your own private network. FirstNet really needs to relinquish itself from the mindset that the only resources they have to tap into are those that created the current carrier business model; a business model that will not work for FirstNet; a business model that is on the downturn itself; a business model that is converging into a content delivery model, not an access solution. 
The big elephant in the room on this one is the fact that the current FirstNet mindset is a one holistic network approach that has to be governed by a new Federal Organization. Of course the Federal Government will still be needed to insure everyone is playing fair, but that role is an oversight role, not an execution role. Stop looking at his from the top down and start looking at it from the bottom up. This network is too big to think holistically, you need to start in a microcosm of it’s eventually landscape. The bottom up approach means that you need to start in one State (the seed) and then build-out from there. I have studied this long enough to know this is the best course forward. If I were a State Governor I would just listen in my consultation meeting with FirstNet and then commit to the “Opt out” scenario, because the current FirstNet strategy will not succeed. 

If the Governor doesn’t choose to “Opt out” soon then they will risk the spectrum falling into the commercial broadband space…when that happens you can forget about having your own Public Safety Broadband Network.

But then again I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet Public Safety Broadband – Local Control of FirstNet and Hidden Agendas?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
There is a lot of talk about the technical approaches to prioritization and localization for command and control of the Public Safety Broadband Network — FirstNet. The fact is that there are multiple layers of prioritization and control, but its adoption is quite simple. Allow me to explain.
The technical approach to prioritizing LTE broadband is an easy subject to be overwhelmed with. At first glance you have this technology that can prioritize in so many ways that it becomes confusing. It’s not the technology that makes it confusing; it’s our own thought process. We tend to over-analyze all the various options with an assortment of data then apply it to the overly researched equipment and situations that we think needs to be addressed as part of the network. With over 260 different variables to choose from, in the current LTE solutions, I would be surprised if we use more than a dozen, the carriers don’t use more than seven. It really doesn’t have to be that complex, then again the vendors may want you to be overwhelmed to sell you more.
The fact of the matter is that you just need to separate the build from the applications and devices that will ride on it. By combining the two topics only confuses the masses. By focusing on the build you will see that we are looking at actual construction activity, installation, rights-of-way, site acquisition and many other physically related requirements. When you put it all together all we have is the deployment of an access LTE, Microwave & Fiber backhaul and centralization of communication routes issue. The technology is what it is. We design and deploy the technology for the given physical characteristics of the geography; along with those characteristics is our ability to get as much out of the technologies reach and capabilities that are possible. There is no design of handsets, or prioritization schemes yet — that will come after.
Getting back to prioritization, the real simple way to look at prioritization is not to be drawn into the weeds on this. Let me give you an example: we have a State, County then City; each has its own jurisdictions and levels of command and control oversight. This layering of control is not because someone wants to be the all-powerful Oz, but because an individual can only handle what is in front of him or her. I’m sure a local Police Chief won’t have the time, nor the will, to manage what goes on in the entire County, or the State, he or she is only interested in what their AOR (Area of Responsibility) brings – or vice versa. Essentially, this Police Chief would be the most knowledgeable about his AOR, not the County, nor the State, and definitely not the Federal Government, thus, localization and control has to be localized and isolated to those that best know the AOR. Plus, legally the State is responsible to help this Police Chief when needed, that’s what’s in the State’s laws, policies and regulations – and it’s Constitution. Unless, of course, we have a new National Police Force that I’m not aware of, and which does not have to abide by State law, which is not out of the realm of possibilities these days.
As for the actual physical prioritization scheme, in relationship to the technology, the application of prioritization is very simple. All the State, County and Local Chiefs need to do is classify who the Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 Users are, then you set the network up with the same prioritization and place the Users in their appropriate database. It doesn’t matter who is on the network, those with Priority 1 access will be able to boot Priority 2 and Priority 3 users. Priority 2 will be able to boot Priority 3 Users. Priority 3 won’t get to boot anybody. If an incident Commander wants to make a Priority 2 or 3 Users as part of the Priority 1 Users, all they have to do is adjust the database. These databases are easy to adjust and can be done with an App, you can even have time constraints on when the User will be put back into their original pool of Priority Users. It really isn’t that hard to understand, but we tend to overcomplicate things due to our own lack of knowledge or hidden agendas.  
Lack of knowledge is easy to fix, hidden agendas is a whole other realm of politics. The fact is the control of the network is not about the physical layout of the Core, it’s about policies and governance. There are those within the Administration, and the States, that understand the power that this network will bring to the Nation. All this talking about net neutrality can be solved with this network, even if it is being built for Public Safety. The fact is the technology will keep outpacing us when it comes to coverage and bandwidth. Forget about the spectrum being manipulated and focus on the garnishment of bandwidth. But, the only way you will be able to solve this problem is through The Myers Model™Public Private Partnership. But then again, what do you expect when you have lawyers building your telecommunications network?
The only reason anybody would be interested in slicing and dicing the spectrum is if they truly are heroic in their cause, or most likely, their intentions are to take spectrum away from on group to give it to others for their own use, leaving the original owners of the spectrum scratching their heads as they realize they still have to build their network anyway — only now they get to do it with less spectrum. Bait and switch is what this is called, or could be construed as larceny, but in reality it’s a true case of the wealthy stealing from Robin Hood.
As the network is prioritized by the Users demands, even within those prioritization schemes will be mini-virtual networks tying together associated groups of sub-users. For example: Priority 1 Users will be made up of First Responders and within those First Responders there will be sub-virtual networks established for the Police, Fire and EMS. Even though the users are prioritized over everybody else, their traffic patterns are still compatible with each other, this allows them to be on the same network and to communicate with others on the network when needed, essentially setting up their own call-group or email list. It’s that simple. The same will happen for the Priority 2 and 3 User Groups as well.
This is quite common in the telecommunications industry today; it’s called Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation. If you buy access today, and want to connect all your offices, this is how the carriers, or ISPs, do it; they just establish virtual private networks, at the bandwidth level, to isolate and protect traffic in Virtual Private Networks – telecoms 101. Examples would be Cricket, Straighttalk, Netflix and others. In the Priority 2 User Group of the PSBN those players will have virtual private networks that isolate traffic between Utilities, Transportation and others. Priority 3 Users have the same where as the commercial carriers will use their own virtual network isolated from their competition. I’m not making this stuff up, it’s been around for years now.
In short, don’t get all caught up in this. The more we focus on it, the more complicated we make it, when it isn’t.
One further note: even though we are having all these conversations about prioritization and control, the reality is we may never even contend with the physical capabilities of the broadband network being deployed. If one carrier can have 100+ Million Users on its network, I’m sure a more robust, hardened, protected network that covers 100% of the Nation will definitely be able to handle this load. Remember, geographically, this network will be twice the size of AT&T and Verizon combined.
But then again, I’m ….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – Carriers squeeze the market! Old timers stay in the fight!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
One thing I remember from my past, that still resonates with me today, was when someone said, “you need to check your equipment before you jump out of the airplane. Once airborne there is no turning back without some major issues”, this same comment holds true today.
The major issue that FirstNet will face in the coming months, years, will be the shortage of available telecom firms to build-out the Public Safety Broadband Network. I spoke about this in an earlier article addressing the shortage of Tower Crews, but in this case that shortage will also include lack of the big guys in the EPC and GEC industry. The catalyst for this shortage is the stereotype of the telecom bust in 2000. When the telecom industry burst back in 2000, all the major telecom players, GECs that is, pulled back from any type of market in telecoms. GEC means general Contractors. EPC means Engineer Procure and Construct.
All the big EPC and GEC players have either eliminated, or tucked their existing telecom units into other, more profitable, industry units. For example: Bechtel used to have Bechtel Telecoms, Parsons used to have Parsons Telecommunications. Bechtel tucked telecoms under Bechtel Power, and Infrastructure.  Parsons tucked theirs under Environmental and Infrastructure, why they did this makes sense. In order to insure the success of ongoing work, and to hedge bets if the industry comes back, these EPCs and GECs want to have some type of expertise they can sell in the field. The market never really recovered so those business groups withered on the vine. It’s hard to compete with such large overheads as the carriers squeezed every last ounce of energy from the mid to low-level players in the field – thus the Turf Contractors.
When a lot of people hear the word “Turf Contractor” they believe it’s related to a geographic assignment, when in reality the term is really used to describe the war’s that go on within a geographic market. These wars enabled the carriers to squeeze lemon from a rock; as of today that rock is now a pebble. The effect of this squeezing process forced the big guys out of the market, what is left are the Turf Contractors. These companies continue to work because they have too, so the carriers continue to enslave them. After all, you can’t blame the Turf Contractors due to the market we are in today, but the Public Safety Broadband will be the game changer.
Like I have stated in the past, if a carrier decides to hold off on a market for a couple of weeks, these smaller guys will fold, or they start laying people off. Worse yet, the Turf Contractors will start looking for crumbs with the new asset holders of Crown Castle or American Tower. The fact is we are in the last vestiges of the commercial broadband market, a market that is being consolidated into 3 major carriers who don’t see a future in selling wireless access, rather they see a future in content and services, thus FiOS, Uverse. The issues that were created from the Turf enslavement process will be transferred to the FirstNet initiative unless we take charge now and setup a big new market.
Without the big players being interested in the market, the chance of FirstNet getting it’s build completed, will be a long time coming. I have witnessed two of these situations first hand. The excitement is easy for those who understand telecommunications, but very sour to those that went through the telecom crash of 2000. Most of those sour-apples now sit on the boards, or hold highly influential roles within these giants, which means, if you say anything that resembles the term “telecommunications”, you will be cast out into the shark invested waters of the telecom turf warzone or face the unpopular position of welfare sustenance.
Even if they manage to muster enough support when a very real opportunity exists, an opportunity that will definitely allow the company to move the bottom line, these firms will only pull back when they look internally for operational support. The reason for the pullback is because of the old withered-out telecom infrastructure support and resources, held together with duck tape, cannot deliver on a promise the company does not fully support. How can you commit to a Billion dollar contract with a State, to build out their PSBN architecture, if all you have is some old remnants of EFI (Engineer, Furnish and Install) services that never really took off in their pursuit of the Turf Markets? How do you use your stalwart resource, which has been with the company since the telephone was invented, and expect the leadership that is needed to push the creativity and drive that is required for such complex technology rollouts? Hell, I know a few guys that still use a telephone to communicate with their subordinates. Without some major leadership changes these companies will not be able to compete. The perception that telecoms is a doomed industry is right, when it comes to the commercial telecom market, but the perception does not hold water against the Public Safety Broadband Market.
The Public Safety Broadband Market will enable a new market of players willing to step forward. This will be a major blow for any large EPC who is holding back because of past fears, why? This new market will be defined by the new entrants who will be small, nimble, and quick to respond, and most importantly, very cheap compared to the overheads of the big guys. There still is hope for the big guys.
In order for the big guys to be successful, in this market, will be based on their own willingness to invest in the new creative talent needed to drive it. Just because they come in with inflated overheads for telecoms, protectionism towards change, they will realize that cost is not everything. Some of these States will want to use existing relationships and commit to quality rather than the lowest price, but that means those big EPC/GECs need to resource and market toward the future. As my experience shows me, this will be next to impossible due to the fact that these organizations are infested with those stalwart workers who manage to hold on to work because of old relationships. These players will not rock the boat with the old-timers at the helm, essentially any hint of creativity gets crushed, and thus they are doomed. You can’t blame them, these resources are the last of the old timers who have held the same job for more than 20 years, and they still have fight in them and to them telecom is evil.
The relationships we have today are based on long-term roles of friendships bred from within the market place. I ask you this, if those friendships have been in place for a long time, does that mean those relationships were based on the mindset of the telecom collapse? What happens as these long-term relationships start to retire? We are in the middle of the largest retirement movement in our history – the Baby Boomers. I see this movement as good and bad. Forget about the notion that if you want insurance by playing it safe with old talent – that’s just a fallacy. The network will be built no matter who is in charge of its rollout. The fact of the matter is that it’s all about letting go of the reins and embracing creativity. Creativity is what made the companies in the first place, and creativity is what you set as a goal just after bankruptcy. A word to the wise, these large EPCs and GECs need to avoid the market in its entirety, or grab hold of it and lead the charge. Carpe Diem! Their business may depend on it.   
The thought of having to retire can take a personal toll on anyone, but added with the stereotype of the “telecom bust”, only helps foster resentment to creativity, which means forced change inevitable, and as a result such resentment only forces the “way we have always done business” to defend itself. As the saying goes, there is always a reaction to every action; or every action an inaction. In this case people would say that we must learn from our mistakes, or we are doomed to repeat them; but we must remember the reaction or inaction piece. If we are avoiding issues due to our historical actions, then the opposite must be true as well, that is, we are ignoring future opportunities that we can excel at. In essence we are frozen in time. In the end, the next generation can either sit idly by and wait for those that sit currently in the leadership roles to retire; or they will fight to take over leadership. My suggestion, make it easy on everyone and step aside, let go of those predetermined notions of loss. The markets of yesterday are no longer. Let the new players make their own mistakes, else what have we to learn from? This market will not wait for the next generation, it will just plow over anybody in its way, I recommend that if you are faced with such retirement, just remember, the world will not stop just because you are no longer at the helm. How does a “young guy” like me know this? You can thank my 6 kids for that.
We are our worst enemies, especially, when we are shell-shocked and have built a wall of trepidation to the point that we are frozen in time. Stop worrying about getting hurt, let creativity exhumed as the next generation takes hold and just get out into the market and make an effort. If you don’t then this new market will roll right over you — that new market in telecoms is the Public Safety Broadband Network, a Network that will be twice the size of AT&T and Verizon combined…geographically. The best way to make sure that this next market is a boom is through the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership…a masterpiece of creativity if I say so myself.
But then again who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet – an expert that wants to help. Try and ignore it only makes it stronger in its pursuit.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
People often ask, “what’s in it for me?” or “what do I gain from knowing what I know and applying it the way I apply it?” The answer is quite simple, and it took me a lifetime to understand it.
I had a friend once say “when you die the Hearse that is taking to your grave never has a U-Haul behind it.” So what is it then? Why have I been so enthralled in the telecommunications field for the last 27 years? Was it because society told me I needed to do it? Or was it because I just really liked doing it? All I can tell you is that doing something for 27 years you better like what you are doing, or your life is just giant blob of misery.
I believe that everyone has a gift that was bestowed upon him or her. Those gifts were emblazoned with passion and fulfillment of doing something we love to do. All you have to do is ask yourself — what is it that you just know you are really good at? Is it healing the sick? Is it building the best phone? Is it the ability to understand and decipher the great mysteries of the Universe? Is it playing Basketball? Or is it knowing everything there is to know about building telecommunication networks? I believe there are only two people who really know the answer to those questions and one of them is reading this blog entry.  
The gifts that we are given are what we sharpen and try to perfect, not because society says we must, but rather because it just brings us joy and happiness. Why is it we find such happiness in these things that may not conform to “what we are suppose to be doing” just because society says we must? What would have happen is George Thorogood heeded the advice “get a haircut and get a real job”? As Mr Thorogood has done himself, those gifts need to be spread to anyone that will listen, because what good are those gifts if you don’t have anyone to share them with? Plus what happens when the day comes where we will be challenged as to whether or not we used those gifts for what they were intended and designed to do?
Maybe its because I’m in my forties; maybe it’s because this is all I have to offer everyone; or maybe because I had a near death experience; over the years I have come to realize that the secret to our happiness is already inside of us, we just need to accept what those gifts are and what it is they are designed to do – that is exactly what I have done with the now titled, “Myers Model”.  
My gift over the years was my love for telecommunications and computers. I know it sounds awkward, nerdy and sometimes corny, but it’s true. I don’t know why I’ve always been drawn to knowing what I know with such passion, maybe it’s a curse, or, maybe I’ve accepted something that was off quilt from the start? It wasn’t until these last few years that I have come to realize that by letting go of the notion that I need to conform to a set of standards only delays the ability to accept what we know is our strong suit and just concentrate on delivering what it is we are impassioned about. It’s like George Thorogood playing “Bad to the Bone” and seeing all those people dancing, shouting and singing the combination of words he created, do you think he just did that because it was a real job? (pun intended)
I don’t know why I picked the topic of advancing telecommunications using the Myers Model Public Private Partnership — it’s definitely not as interesting as “Bad to the Bone”. I don’t know why I started this journey right after 9-11. I don’t know why that all I can think about is telecommunications when it comes to work – I just do. It is what it is and all I can tell you is that I have accepted this gift and I want to share it with everyone that will listen.
To me it is clear as day as to what needs to happen to build the National Public Safety Broadband Network, it’s like I was designed to fulfill this role. Whether you believe me or not, maybe it’s our inability to accept something greater than ourselves, it’s all irrelevant to the fact that this is what I know and understand, and I truly believe my task is to let everyone know about it, because in the end, when I am getting a ride in that Hearse, the U-Haul will be picked clean, but the gifts I was able to share will endure for as long as it is needed.
If by constructing the biggest Public Safety telecommunications network ever built, using a model that my gifts developed, and if that is what makes the Nation feel safer, then maybe this is what I am suppose to do. These were gifts given to me, I don’t own them, and I surely can’t take the rewards of its fruit with me when I die. All I can do is concentrate on what I know, and I preach it to as many people as I can, which as of today, has been to more than 37 States making up more than half the Nation – literally thousands of people now. I don’t believe these gifts were given to me to create my own personal monetary gain, why would it, I’m just the messenger. What will I take with me when I need to pack that U-Haul when I die? This is why I have preached on the topic of a model I dedicated 12 years of my life too – a public private partnership model that I know will work — a model that is not tied to a vendor product, or a consulting firms success, nor is it tied to any managed service offering that will generate millions of dollars, I am just talking about a model that will enable our great Nation to construct a vital part of securing our ability to bring care to those in need. In the end it’s just a model, like a radio is just a radio, what good is it is if nobody uses it? Whether you are a conservative, liberal, Muslim American, Native Indian, or just some old white dude, we all benefit from what this model can do. 
We have many within the Federal Government, the States and the commercial industries that all have great intentions for building this Public Safety Broadband Network, what I see as a major issue is the inability to get above the fray of the political scene; the lack of understanding of telecom business models; and the lack of just what telecommunications means. We can get caught staring into the eyes of Kaa all day long, but, if we don’t concentrate on the “bear necessities” we will never get out of the jungle. We need to start by focusing on a small piece first. Pick a State, any State, and allow the Myers Model™ to be tested. In the end what have we to lose? Isn’t it the same network anyway? Plus, the taxpayer-funded model can always be the fallback option. What really gets me upset is people trying to take pieces of the 20-Mhz of spectrum that was clearly given to Public Safety. Whether you believe 20-Mhz is too much doesn’t matter, because in the end only the Public Safety folks have the say…or the President…. or Congress who wrote the Act…. regardless it is not owned by the commercial industry. Plus, my understanding of telecommunications tells me that this 20-Mhz of spectrum will be used completely…trust me. There are a lot of users for this network and with some simply knowledge transfer everyone will be able to understand.
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet — too much data is not healthy…. cut the fat and stop farming crap, I mean data.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

If there is one thing that the Federal Government does better than the commercial carriers is the collection of information. You can get any kind of map demonstrating coverage based scenarios, to include the social impacts on manure haulers. Maybe we can create a map that demonstrates the broadband necessities of manure haulers in order to convey the amount of manure in transit; this could provide the local Police Chief with some much needed information so that he/she can be fully prepared for a full load of crap he has to take care of — then I’m sure the fact that the Feds can go way “down into the grass to paint the pants on the ants” in data analytics, which by the way should bring comfort to the local citizens as to who will clean up all that crap, will be justified. No pun intended – or was it? Brings back bad memories of research and statistical analysis classes in school; those classes also produce a lot of manure to the point we were stumped on what, if any, decision we really needed to make.

The thing is, there isn’t a perfect answer, so stop looking for it in the way of more data. Lets just deal with the crap we already have — sorry I meant manure…I mean data. One thing a Federal worker is good at is making work for work sake as a means to convince themselves that their job has meaning, we all do that, just the Feds do it much better. Nothing better than collecting a whole lot of data and not understanding why, or for what, is a way of life for them. In the commercial world we call that fat; fat was the enemy and we are always on a diet…still are. I think what’s needed is a better understanding on how a commercial model for LTE is implemented. We don’t need to know how the technology works other than what we  can gain with more profitable services, or how much better their already installed base of assets can “fit so perfectly”, what we need to understand, and accept, is the fact that we have to build a new infrastructure solely dedicated to the primary purpose of public safety; it just so happens that this new infrastructure may also be the supporting platform for even those same carries in the future.

I understand the need to collect information to start the process of building a business model, but you must execute your strategy based on a more realistic assumption that you can’t shotgun the entire bus barn and not expect to be covered in the manure from inside — I mean data. We don’t need that much data to provide us with an appropriate model to move forward with. In fact, the more data collected, the more convoluted and undefinable the answer will be. For a commercial carrier its quite simple; you have a product (LTE), you need a user base to concentrate on (subscribers), number of subscribers dictate revenue (ARPU), you run a cost analysis on the capitla required and match it against your revenue (ROI); if the revenue allows you to outpace your cost to build, then you make the decision to go after the market. If you decide to go after the market, then you start your deep dive into the analytics for the purpose of refining your cost models. The key is to gather just enough data to make your first decision, there will be many. This is the decision process for building a business case in telecoms.

This decision process is a check-and-balance to insure we stay on track with our business model – in this case our ROI is greater than the capital needed to build and maintain. What happens if you don’t? What happens when you don’t have a business plan? Well we are front and center to what happens when you don’t have an agreed upon plan.

If you don’t address a simplistic view, your ROI will be askew to the point where you are simply paying more money to build and sustain than your revenue can account for. In collecting so much data you will also convolute your decision process. All we need is a small portion of the data to provide a rough order of magnitude so that we can get to the decision point; that decision point will be a refinement of our original business plan – in this case Option A (FirstNet carrier model), Option B (State Out-out), or Option C (FirstNet Opting In for a State implementation of the Myers Model™). In the end this is what the States want to see. Most States really do want to work with FirstNet, but, they also want FirstNet to do it on their terms and based on a business model that incorporates the monetization of the spectrum to capitalize on the State’s ability to fulfill its own self-sustainment requirement. This means a State wants FirstNet to play a part in the State’s Public Private Partnership rollout via their ownership control. Why? Because the States also realize that having FirstNet take an ownership position will allow for sustainability of the overall national network – beyond an individual State’s jurisdictional control.

After hearing about all the meetings, and seeing all the data being collected, I’m beginning to think that the contributors to the FirstNet cause are just doing work for works sake. Now don’t get me wrong there is some great work being done, but a majority may prove useless without a business plan to work against. The biggest elephant in the room is a business model, a business model that can create “self-sustainment”. What I’m afraid of is that FirstNet will get so far down the data collection road, based on information they didn’t need, and have committed to plans that never really considered because they don’t fully understand their own business needs, essentially useless data and watsed taxpayer money…..none the less with perfect timing just before an election cycle.

Once FirstNet actually starts to look at self-sustainment, then a true business plan will take shape. Thank goodness Chairwoman Swenson spoke about that need for self-sustainment in her speech at the PSCR conference. Don’t be afraid to go for 100% self-sustainment, or 100% coverage with truly hardened specifications. It doesn’t matter how much it costs, what matters is that we have a cyclical business model that will drive a balance between business needs, self-sustainment and quality assurance for all that partake.

But then again what do I know I’m….

Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet – Sue Swenson a real breath of fresh air! Now lets trial some business models!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

OK I have to say I spoke with Sue Swenson and I really like what she has to say. She brings a personality that I am use to seeing in the entrepreneurial spirit of telecommunications. Very strategic driver with the ambition to move things forward, she will bring a great amount of freshness in making things a success for FirstNet. My wife was correct, as she always is, in stating “let a woman takeover so things can get done”. I have to say I can spot a real gem and Sue really fits that mold.

From what I was able to convey she was able to grasp very quickly, reason being is that she knew where I was going, she has done her homework, and well versed on how private networks can develop, especially as it relates to self-reliance and self-funding requirements, as she put it, “she is an operations Gal”. Chairwoman Swenson understands how the Myers Model™ can help and that such a partnerships will be crucial to the success of FirstNet by monetizing the use of the spectrum for the benefit of “self-sustainment”.

As I’m sure there are many pushing their own model, realistically though we only have a few to choose from  — the traditional vendor models, the Myers Model, the Taxpayer funded model, and the spectrum sharing model. Now I may be stepping out there on a limb, but last I counted we had 50 States and 6 Territories, as was suggested to TJ Kennedy, and others on the FirstNet Board, why not trial each of the models as a type of XPrize scenario? Just a suggestion! Each model author, if adopted by a State and approved by FirstNet, were given the chance to deploy their model in a State on a trial basis, then the results can be reviewed by FirstNet, and based on success ratings, be adopted nationalistically. Just a thought. Realistically, with the new Chairwoman, I am confident she will be able to discern what the real models are that could meet their needs without much of an effort. What have we to lose? We are building the same network, using standard vendor solutions (accept the spectrum sharing model), and we have been deploying these networks for years now. If any of the models don’t work, then the more successful model can take over….if none work then FirstNet can pursue its carrier solution. Like I said, what have we to lose?

By deploying trials of the models, I am more than confident that the Myers Model™ will come out on top, after all, this model has been successfully deployed for many years in the transportation and infrastructure industries. Those States that have adopted P3 models for deploying bridges, roadways, airports, etc.. know that this model well and they know it can work, plus, its business they are familiar with. Like I said in the beginning, the Myers Model™ is an adaptation of those successful models onto the telecommunications industry. The fact is, although the P3 concept is not knew, it is new in its deployment within telecommunications, that model is what I am recommending to FirstNet – that model is the Myers Model™.

But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet — Sam Ginn jumping ship, following suit to Bill D’Agastino, two men overboard. As my wife always tells me; "Let a women take over so we can get things done."

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Hats off to Sam Ginn who is stepping down from the FirstNet Board. It’s never easy to lead the inaugural board on such a grand endeavor. The path was never going to be easy given the balancing act that was required between so many players and the eagerness to get something done so fast.
As I spoke about in an earlier article: “FirstNet – Bill D’Agastino jumping ship? Carrier perception kills their plans?” —the course I predict is that FirstNet is making strides in the right direction by formulating a non-biased approach that will represent all the entities involved. The carriers still have a performance at the table — if FirstNet plays its cards right. The carriers will be better positioned, not just to support FirstNet, but for themselves as well. The balancing of act of user requirements, asset availability, and projected recurring revenue, can now be established to attract private industry into the fray. Plus, the defining role of the State Governor’s will benefit tremendously with the added advantage of monetizing the spectrum for their benefit in support of Public Safety and FirstNet. 
We must resist the brilliance of the technology; or our innate ability to build in a moments notice; we must focus on a solid business case that will balance the needs of all involved, without it, we are just wasting money on fancy technologies and large projects with no real long-term goals. We can’t build a network just for the sake of saying “we are building a network”; such actions don’t help Public Safety at all, in fact it’s detrimental to the cause. The solution for FirstNet cannot be a carrier solution, or a spectrum solution, nor can it be just broadband solution, the solution needs to be a balancing act of the needs and requirements of those that have the money to pay for services; those that have the cash to fund it; and those that need the service to subsist. The technology is the fun part; the hard part is figuring out the balancing act, a task I married myself to some twelve years ago. 
In the end, as I hinted to in an earlier article entitled; “A Silent Coup is Afoot” it’s clear that the Department of Commerce is indeed silently removing the carrier perception. That perception of the carriers influencing FirstNet must be quelled, the success of FirstNet, and its ability to converse with the States, will depend on it. As I have alluded to in the past, the best way forward is with the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership, and that model needs to be adopted, not only by the State, but by FirstNet as well.
But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — NPSTC Public Safety Grade Report for the Public Safety standpoint.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Just read an interesting article entitled, “NPSTC releases document describing ‘public-safety-grade’ requirements for FirstNet” by Donny Jackson | Urgent Communications dated May 27, 2014. What’s so interesting is that the NPSTC (National Public Safety Technology Council) may be cutting their network-hardening short by not including all its users. Then again it is the NPSTC which really is suppose to only cover Public Safety concerns, so that is understandable, but the report does go into some handy information. 
We must remember that to achieve the hardening specifications, holistically, we must not forget all of the users in that they will bring hardening, bandwidth characteristics, that drive initial deployment and future upgrade specifications, plus the coverage aspects that will be dictated by user requirements. Meeting the needs of Public Safety is one thing, but Public Safety may not have the hardening characteristics that a Utility, or Forestry Agency, will have out in the middle of the most rural areas. You need to balance all the needs to achieve, not only the specifications required, but also the cost aspects of building in the areas that may not be economically feasible to Public Safety, but are just right for a combined need of Public Safety, Utilities, Agriculture and Forestry (as an example).  
One of the important factors of a Public private Partnership (The Myers Model™) is it essential characteristic to balance the needs of all Users in the network. The NPSTC report illustrates a one-sided view and by not highlighting the fact that “other users” will also have requirements gives the market the idea that this can’t be done, which is not true. In fact, the national build-out can be done, if, FirstNet, or the State through its SLIGP arrangement, can accumulate all of the State’s organizational entities, and their assets, as a means to highlight the needed specifications. That collection process will, or should, include a cost model analysis of broadband needs of each and every entity, as well as a projected recurring revenue stream. All of the variables will provide a balanced approach to user needs and projected payments for service. You will only find the answer to this in the Myers Model™.
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet – You’re acting like my six kids….just pick a business model and sell it already….act like an entrepreneur! Stop trying to herd cats!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
When are we going to understand that we are just building an LTE broadband company? The important point is the word “company” not network. Of course we are building a network, but that network is designed based on a plan of action; that plan of action is formulated by picking, and balancing the needs of your target market, your main shareholders, capital needs, partnership desires and product-to-revenue capabilities.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 is a an act that…blah, blah, blah….  Essentially the Act already puts into action the requirements that the Public Safety Broadband solution must meet. Crucially the requirement for “self-funding” and “self-sustaining” will be a driving force of the Business Plan you create. Also included in the Act is the requirement to be all-inclusive of Public Safety, and their geographic footprint, as to allow for fully interoperable communications between all First Responders. But how do we get there? We need to envision our endgame, create a plan, then based on that plan (business plan), create the design, outline the build, create the schedule — and then build it? That plan will highlight the best course of action – well before we need to know what design we must have.  Am I missing something here? Seems simple to me, but I’ve been in the telecom business since I joined the Army back in 1986…what the hell do I know!
How many RFI’s (and why are we even talking RFPs right now is beyond me), conferences, press briefings and board meetings do we need in order to just get this train moving? I have six kids and I can safely state that I can get them into the minivan faster that getting FirstNet to just adopt the business plan and set the standards, it’s a close call, but I refer to it as herding cats. Usually my last words to my children are, “just get in the car and buckle up, I’m leaving!” – incase you missed it; this is analogous to the State being the parent; FirstNet and the Public Safety Community being the kids.
If I were an entrepreneur, and I owned the D-Block Band 14 Spectrum, I would have formulated a vision of what my end-game was within a hour, else I wouldn’t own the spectrum. Just because you may know that the spectrum is valuable, doesn’t do any good without a sound vision that creates your business case. My vision would be to create a great broadband company, based on a product using LTE, targeting strong and stalwart Priority 1 and 2 customers, and then look for partners to help fund it.  It helps when my customer base won’t drive me crazy every time a new technology comes out; my business would have the backing of both the State and the Federal Government; plus, the added pleasure to sell my unused bandwidth to the commercial carriers or service providers; and, most importantly, have $7 Billion in my pocket to get it started.
This makes the actions needed quite simple…. take my vision…build my business case (cost impacts versus return on investment) then outline the best strategy to start its rollout, then take action to get it moving. In the end, all I’m doing is selling LTE broadband services, so why is this so hard to understand? Well, mainly, because you can’t build from top down (Federal) you have to build from bottom up (State).
If the $7 Billion was my personal cash (which from the taxpayer position the $7 Billion is mine), and I knew that that $7 Billion won’t cover my needs to build out my entire business solution, then I would start with what I can, using the approach that best meets my holistic needs, and then focus on getting to my end game. That end game is the full national network, the capital to sustain it, using the product of LTE. The output of that product is cash, which allows me to spread into other entrepreneurial pursuits, like, more Public Safety solutions, paying for First responders needs, or enticing private investors to help fund my idea – sound familiar?
Look at it this way: the US wants to build a pipeline from the Oil Sands of Northern Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico. It will cost some $20 Billion to build a pipeline across the Northern tier of Canada into Alaska down into Washington State, over to Buffalo New York, then down to Texas. Or we can just connect to the Canadian pipeline that already exists and goes straight from the Oil Sands project right into the Buffalo area for only $6 Billion. Many would think that because the American version cost more that we must do the Canadian version. In reality though, that means we would be investing almost 80% of that $6 Billion into Canada, not the United States. Where as if we go forward with the $20 Billion project 90% of that money goes right back into our economy – not Canada’s (Don’t get me wrong, I like the Canadians, but I gotta feed those six kids). It’s not about the amount of money it will take to get it done; it’s all about where the money goes to get it done.
We don’t need to be afraid of viewing this entire PSBN solution as a cost on the taxpayers, or the political message of generating cash revenue from the Public Safety Broadband Network; it’s fruitless to think we can control what others think. It’s all about where the money goes and how best it meets of the target market. Our biggest issue will be our need to lookout for greed, ambivalence, naiveté, coercion and corruption, or any detrimental affect that could interrupt the best business model. But we can’t even get to that stage if FirstNet doesn’t create a business plan, align it with the best go-to-market strategy, then present it to their partnered investors – those partners are the State Governors, local First Responders, Utilities, Transportation, DHS, and most of all, the Private Equity Investors – unless you think the taxpayers should pay for this.
This isn’t a game of agendas to drive a winner; it is an attempt to create a broadband business that best needs of all those involved. Notice I didn’t say anything about carriers, vendors, or contractors. In this case FirstNet, the organization, which is controlled by its board, is the entrepreneur; any entrepreneur would not try to create a model that investors weren’t willing to invest in. Trying to partner on a technical solution, with an assortment of vendors and contractors, before you have completed what your target market is, what your product is, how you need to sell that product, how you must fund that products introduction, and ultimately, how you collect cash from that product, is what needs to happen.  
The rules to this game are already written into the act. Just read the act, pick the best model that aligns with its requirements, and then sell it to your investors. It really is that simple. Following those engagements, a course of action, or next steps, will present itself. Shot gunning the side of the bar with conferences, sessions, meetings, and webinars, is not going to get the Board to understand the business model any better than understanding what you are building (an LTE network), its functional capabilities, and how best to productize its services for your target market – in this case “Public Safety Service Organizations” — as depicted in the Act as well. It’s all there. Just read the Act! I’ve spent the better part of 11 years now focused on the best business models for just such an entrepreneurial endeavor, and unfortunately, I am the only one who took the time to do so, which tells you about the kind of person I am. That sounds feisty doesn’t it? Or crazy? Oh well, like I do with my kids, sometimes you have to light a fire under their ass to get them moving. Once they move they love it.  But who am I other than just a Dad and….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – Why Chief Dowd’s 911 was never going to succeed!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
The issue with the misalignment on the 911 system in New York City, and the communications network, is the fact that the Capital Program Office of the MTA is in charge of building, running and maintain the 23 Point-of-Presence (PoPs) locations that these wireless LMR solutions and the data centralization of 911 are reliant upon. The MTA is heavily unionized and influenced with corruption. Chief Dowd wouldn’t have been the first, or the last, official to take favors from the vendors and contractors in the city. Chief Dowd was just the latest to fall prey to the lobbying.
The MTA of New York has been planning, installing and upgrading the old SONET ATM (Phase 1 and 2 which was originally awarded to Siemens back in 1996) network to the next generation of DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexing) and Gigabit Ethernet solution for the last 20 years. This upgrade was a much-contested suggestion I proposed some years ago – me playing golf with the then CPM President. I was the Project Manager for the oversight of Siemens for Phase 1. My direct line of thinking basically informed him that they were wasting more than $250 Million on the purchase of 271 SONET ATM switches for a product line that didn’t meet specs and was, in fact, declared end-of-life – this was around 2002. The product was the SeaBridge Switch. Eventually I introduced Ericsson to at least get the right switches installed so that it could meet spec, but this didn’t alleviate the issue that the comm closets were not prepped to handle the HVAC concerns and the water penetration issues.
As I just hinted about, one of many issues that they face, they insist on utilizing the 23 PoP locations that are located within the subway system, that also tie together 291 of the old communication closets located in stations that the MTA maintains. The issue is that these closets are decrepit and leaking with water, after all, the subway was put in in 1904 and, as you might guess, so were these communication closets.
The simple solution would be to splice the fibers, which run throughout the cities subway, into the basement of buildings located above, then retrofit for the hardening characteristics that are needed. We had 900 -1000 pound cabinets that needed to be installed, but we couldn’t even get them into the stations due to the narrowness of the stairs accessing the closets. We spent 10 times more on these cabinets in hopes that it could accommodate with the humidity and precipitation. Once again, I stated this years ago.
The difficulty that the MTA was facing actually became the basis for my dissertation back in 2003, in short, “why can’t the MTA build a telecommunications network”. The outcome of that research capitalized on the fact that the City needed to utilize the Public Private Partnership model I came up with, this is the same model that is being considered today by FirstNet and about 37 States. Just so happens that the MTA in New York was my case study – who would have thought? I am not surprised that the 911 solution for the City is in disarray, and you can count on the fact that there will be fraud and corruption uncovered as well.
The contractors that typically get all the work, not the big guys, the big guys are just the face of the project, I’m talking about the contractors that are tied to all the Unions within the city. The reason they can’t get anything done is because the Unions are killing any momentum they try to move forward with; if its not the Unions then it is all the inbred, or in-bed, relationships that are pervasive throughout any of the city contracts. I wouldn’t count on anything actually being done in the future either, unless DeBlasio will go after the unions and the corruption – I wouldn’t count on it though.   

Just some guy and a blog….