Author: drmikemyers

FCC declares all of telecoms as a utility — then the access providers to broadband win and the taxpayers lose.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Why is it that the “Who’s Who” of telecoms wants the FCC to classify broadband as a Utility?
Nearly 30 CEOs and groups representing the nation’s broadband companies called on Wheeler to reject calls to reclassify broadband service as a public utility in a letter that circulated May 13.
“Not only is it questionable that the commission could defensibly reclassify broadband service under Title II, such an action would greatly distort the future development of, and investment in, tomorrow’s broadband networks and services,” said the letter organized by Broadband For America.
The list of CEOs at the bottom of the letter was a Who’s Who of the nation’s telecommunications firms including AT&T, Charter Communications Inc., Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., among others. The letter also was signed by the CEOs of CTIA – The Wireless Association, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association and US Telecom.
(FCC Chairman Pushes Ahead on New Rules Despite Pressure From Many Directions Thursday, May 15, 2014)
One idea is that the telecom giants of yesterday are sitting on a lot of old infrastructure. By classifying broadband as a utility then those telecom players can off-load their archaic infrastructure onto the taxpayer – that’s why.
You see the carriers understand that they are being squeezed between ever-dwindling access model and the rise of the content service model, both of which they are not traditionally competitive in. What better way to formulate an exit strategy from the access model than off-loading your old assets of towers, fiber, etc., onto an organization that doesn’t understand the market fully. By relinquishing themselves of the burden of owning the overheads of the infrastructure, and the cost of maintenance, the telecom players can better position themselves for the content service market; the only issue will be their size and capability to morph into an all new business model. The smaller guys will either be bought up or put forward as scrap.
What better timing then to act on a brand new FCC Chairman and push him to a quick resolve by getting him to name the entire telecommunication infrastructure as a Utility. If that happens then taking care of the grass, and upgrading the network, will fall on the taxpayers — or a few investor owned efforts. We aren’t talking about a utility meter here, we’re talking about a complex technical architecture that will just fall apart once its current players get relief of ownership.
But, here’s an idea; what if the carriers were able to get all the access, 100% geographic coverage, complimenting their already existing metro markets without building a single tower – and not hitting the taxpayers for funding? As an expert in this, there is only one model that fits the mold perfectly, the same model that FirstNet should be based upon – The Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet Business Model Comparisons

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Being that this chart has hit a nerve with a lot of readers I have expanded it to include more topics
Thought everyone might find this chart interesting.
Updated
The Myers Model™
Spectrum Arbitrage
Carrier Supported Subscription Model
Vendor Finance Model — Motorola Model

Myers ModelTM is a Public Private Partnership where as the State, and FirstNet, maintain board control of a private broadband company for the State.

Spectrum Slicing Carrier Sale is basically selling parts of the D-Block spectrum to the commercial carriers.

Carrier Based Subscriber Model is just like you get from the commercial carriers today using their networks.

Vendor Finance Model, better known as the Motorola-BayRICS model, partially financed from the vendor with strict terms and conditions.

But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet Business Model — it intends to sell the D-Block spectrum to the carriers. If this is true FirstNet will not succeed.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Why would FirstNet try to sell parcels of the D-Block spectrum to the commercial carriers? What happens in 10-years when the carriers are facing a great deal of scrutiny to compete in the real content world? What will be the impact on the State, FirstNet, Public Safety, and the taxpayers when the carriers come back saying they have to shed assets to compete in the content business? What kind of fiasco will the carriers leave the taxpayers with? How vulnerable will Public Safety be? What impact will it have on National Security? Why do we need these problems?
The carriers don’t really understand their own business model. If a carrier believes it must own the D-Block spectrum in order to provide wireless services, then they are doomed already. Contrary to recent moves within the industry the Average Rate Per User (ARPU) keeps dropping and the overheads keep increasing. In order to adjust the carrier must shed the cost associated with the archaic infrastructure assets (towers, fiber, etc.) and move into a higher margin of services by selling content. In the end, if the carrier wants to survive, their only chance is by eliminating their desire of owning their own infrastructure assets, which includes spectrum. But, knowing that these organizations are driven by the mindset of money, I’m afraid their own mindset will be there doom, unless they can eliminate their senior executives that are driving the models of yesteryear.
The new models are: you sell access or you sell content. It’s obvious that owning the assets to deliver services combined with access is not working, thus the desire for players like AT&T to sell-off their towers. Players like Google, Netflix, Vudu, or any other streaming based content providers, will out price a carrier any day of the week. Why will they always beat them in price? It’s simple — they don’t own the infrastructure. Why pay $180 a month for a Tier 2 program of TV on Uverse when I can get it for $9 a month from Netflix, or Aereo, through my $50 Internet Access? To counter that the carriers will charge more for carrying Netflix traffic, only means my $8 monthly bill to Netflix goes up to $9 – still way better than paying $180 a month. Better yet, if I were Google, I would just give away the access charge by rolling it into existing content services? How will a carrier compete with no charge on access to the Internet, i.e. Google Fiber? I mean if AT&T wants to compete in the business of selling access, then they will need to shed other, non-profitable services, such as voice services.  If they want to play in the content market, then they will need to shed infrastructure to match the competition. Or, maybe the carriers realize they are doomed already?
If you’re a carrier – what do you want to do? Will you make up your mind already? You sell off all your assets, i.e. towers, fiber, etc., because of overheads eating away at your margins, yet you try to own the D-Block spectrum? What does that give you? If you own the spectrum you need towers to work on it, but you just sold your assets that would enable you the ability to use the spectrum. (Example: AT&T sold all towers to Crown Castle) Fiber to the home seems to be undercutting your model as well, I for one don’t even use the traditional voice services anymore and have reverted to IP based calling – and nobody even knows the difference – and it doesn’t cost me a dime. As for cellular service, I use MVNO (Managed Virtual Network) and I only pay $45 a month on a month-to-month unlimited plan (talk, text and data). I bought my own phone and have no disconnect charges or anything, so I’m not stuck to any carrier contract. How about the TV service? I don’t even use the traditional TV service anymore; I use Netflix, Vudu, and others for my service. No more of the $200 a month service charge to get a bunch of channels I don’t watch anyway. Reminds me of the Dire Straight’s song – “57 Channels and Nothin On”. Do we see the writing on the wall here?
You can be assured, when players like Google and Netflix, really get going it will be hard for any carrier to compete in the content business. Does anyone realize that Google has a Market Cap of almost $700 Billion (Intraday + Enterprise values)? How about FaceBook, which has only been around for a few years and already has a Market Cap of $500 Billion. Netflix has been around for two years and already has a Market Cap of $40 Billion – and growing. Essentially, the carrier model is being squeezed into, either selling access, or competing with real content providers. What happens when all the stations, i.e. Fox News, or MSNBC, start selling direct access to streaming video services? The list goes on and on. Does anyone realize that GE owns 61% of the cable industry? Imagine how much content they have to throw around?
What does this mean to National Public Safety Broadband Network? With FirstNet trying to build a business model of selling slices of the D-Block spectrum to the national carriers, means that the FirstNet, the State, Public Safety and the taxpayer will now be subsidizing a carrier model that is on the downturn. In a few years Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile will follow in AT&T’s steps by selling off their tower and fiber assets as well. This will be necessary to survive; else AT&T will start eating away at their markets by providing cheaper wireless broadband services. In turn Google will eat away at AT&T. Big fish eating little fish scenario.
FirstNet will be faced with the daunting task of going through a tremendous upheaval of user rights, access short-falls, and cost cutting by the carriers, who in the end, will end up selling back, or giving back, the rights to the spectrum anyway. We think that the state of the commercial infrastructure supporting Public Safety is bad today? Wait 5-10 years from now when FirstNet is in bed with the carriers. Talking about a threat on National Security, who betters to do more harm than our own lack of knowledge in executing a telecom business model? Once again, we will be our own worst enemy.
The spectrum does not belong to FirstNet — it belongs to Public Safety. The majority of Public Safety resides within a State, which means it is under the control of the Governor. The Governor reports to its citizens and is held to the belief he/she will do what’s best for the State and its citizens. How does selling chunks of the D-Block broadband spectrum help the State? How will FirstNet pay for the build-out of the National Public Safety Broadband Network? How much money does FirstNet believe it will get by selling chunks of spectrum, which it isn’t entitled to? What about the “self-sustaining” piece of the legislation? Who will pay for the long-term operations and maintenance of the network after they have sold off the spectrum? What happens if FirstNet fails to achieve their goals, yet have already sold the spectrum to the carriers?  In the end Public Safety and the taxpayers will be the ones holding the bags on these decisions?

Selling slices of the D-Block to the Carriers still does not address who will build FirstNet. In fact, it only makes the deployment for the National Public Safety Broadband Network tougher by shrinking the amount of available spectrum that Public Safety was granted in the first place. Selling spectrum to the carriers does not address the most important aspect of the NPSBN solution — covering the rural areas.

There is a solution.

But who am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet — Are Carriers trying to say they are "Public Safety Service Organizations"? Not by the Governor’s standards.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

I attended the Broadband Summit that TJ Kennedy spoke at — I don’t think TJ meant, in anyway, that the Utilities are not viewed as essential to the success of the National Public Safety Broadband Network. Actually, you can go through the archives and see that the Board, and the GM, have indeed stated exactly the opposite. I’m referring to the following out-take in Fiercewireless:

“Further, he indicated that FirstNet intends to solicit outside input regarding whether access to the FirstNet network should be restricted to fire, emergency medical services (EMS) and law enforcement or should be extended to critical-infrastructure entities such as utilities, which desire broadband spectrum to enable smart-grid technologies. ‘Some topics we anticipate putting out for public comment include eligible users and state opt-in/opt-out,’ Kennedy said.” (Tammy Parker, Fiercewireless)

The fact of the matter, the national build out really doesn’t have anything to do with towers, in reality, it will all be about real-estate. You need real-estate to put the towers on. Sorry but First Responders don’t own enough land to get the coverage they need,let alone the money to fund their own build. The NPSBN needs the secondary users. The towers, which will be new builds, will be completely different than the traditional carrier standards, plus, for the carriers it’s not about owning the assets, its all about the spectrum. No where in the act does it define the secondary user. It is a fact that the network has to be built locally, and I don’t know about your State,  the Governor controls the State, not the Federal Government. Therefore, it is the Governor who needs to decide who the local “Public Safety Services Organizations” are (as defined by the act).

Through the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) became Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012). It states in section (27) PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES —The term ‘‘public safety services’’—
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 337(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(f)); and
(B) includes services provided by emergency response providers, as that term is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).

In short, section 337(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC), it states under sub-section
(f) Definitions: The term ‘‘public safety services’’ means services-

(A) The sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property;
(B) That are provided-
(i) by State or local government entities;
or
(ii) by non-governmental organizations
that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision 
of such services; and

(C) That are not made commercially available to the public by the provider
The Law Flow Diagram by Scott Foster

With most of the States I have spoken with, they don’t see the carriers as “Public Safety Service Organizations”, so what does that mean? Just because a carrier provides network access, enabling a true “Public Safety Service Organization” to help complete its Public Safety mission, doesn’t mean it is actually a Public Safety entity. There is a reason that the term “Commercial Carrier” is used….thats because they make money by selling commercial service. A Commercial Carrier is not a Non-For-Profit, Police Chief, or Federal Emergency Management group, if they were, then their existing networks would be built to better standards to withstand the disaster scenarios. But, unfortunately, history has proven that just the opposite is true, whereas, their assets become non-responsive during a disaster, thus, no use to true Public Safety Organizations. Such scenarios was the catalyst for the President of the United States to dedicate the D-Block, band-14, spectrum to Public Safety.

It’s pretty clear to me that the Law dictates that secondary users are allowed — am I missing something? (ref below) Are we getting hints that the carriers are losing the battle to influence the control the spectrum? Note: the law states “access or use” of the NPSBN….it doesn’t say anything about granting the use of the spectrum or allocating the spectrum to anybody other than Public Safety. I mean, if I were a carrier, I would be getting pretty nervous that all my work to grab control of the spectrum, is in fact, not illustrated in the Act.

What really confuses me is that the carriers gain the most by backing the use of the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership than by trying to grab the spectrum for their own need. If I were a commercial carrier, why would I want to own the spectrum, after all, you own it means you pay for it, plus you have to spend a lot of capital to use and maintain it, capital that is only taking away from my profit margins? Those profit margins affect my job security, where as, the shareholders will, in fact, hold me responsible for. If I can administer a business model that eliminates my need to own the costly infrastructure, plus the long term maintenance, and improve my bottom-line with huge margins, why wouldn’t I want to present that to the shareholders? Think about it, I can, not only improve my bottom-line, but also shed the risk, and put any network outages onto a third party — that happens to be backed by the Federal and State Government – why wouldn’t I? Seems like a no-brainer if you ask me. Owning and controlling the spectrum is so old school and costly.

As a carrier, I would only have to continue with my current operations of commercial service, using the investments I already own, then wait for the NPSBN to be completed. Once completed, sell-off my physical tower assets, or divest them into the physical infrastructure of FirstNet, shore up my arrangement with a protected MVNO (Managed Virtual Network Operator), and then move towards an all-content service approach with much higher margins on service. The real question is why haven’t I been backing this model? Shareholders are waiting, and when they read articles like this one, how long before they start asking themselves if they have the right leadership at the helm?

Then again, I’m….

Just some guy and a blog……

SEC. 6208. PERMANENT SELF-FUNDING; DUTY TO ASSESS AND COL- LECT FEES FOR NETWORK USE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337), the First Responder Network Authority is authorized to assess and collect the following fees: (1) NETWORK USER FEE.—A user or subscription fee from each entity, including any public safety entity or secondary user, that seeks access to or use of the nationwide public safety broadband network.
(2) LEASE FEES RELATED TO NETWORK CAPACITY.—

H. R. 3630—61 (A) IN GENERAL.—A fee from any entity that seeks to enter into a covered leasing agreement. (B) COVERED LEASING AGREEMENT.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a ‘‘covered leasing agreement’’ means a written agreement resulting from a public-private arrangement to construct, manage, and operate the nation- wide public safety broadband network between the First Responder Network Authority and secondary user to permit— (i) access to network capacity on a secondary basis for non-public safety services; and (ii) the spectrum allocated to such entity to be used for commercial transmissions along the dark fiber of the long-haul network of such entity. (3) LEASE FEES RELATED TO NETWORK EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE.—A fee from any entity that seeks access to or use of any equipment or infrastructure, including antennas or towers, constructed or otherwise owned by the First Responder Network Authority resulting from a public-private arrangement to construct, manage, and operate the nationwide public safety broadband network. (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEE AMOUNTS; PERMANENT SELF- FUNDING.—The total amount of the fees assessed for each fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be sufficient, and shall not exceed the amount necessary, to recoup the total expenses of the First Responder Network Authority in carrying out its duties and responsibilities described under this subtitle for the fiscal year involved. (c) ANNUAL APPROVAL.—The NTIA shall review the fees assessed under this section on an annual basis, and such fees may only be assessed if approved by the NTIA. (d) REQUIRED REINVESTMENT OF FUNDS.—The First Responder Network Authority shall reinvest amounts received from the assessment of fees under this section in the nationwide public safety interoperable broadband network by using such funds only for constructing, maintaining, operating, or improving the network.

FirstNet, the State, and letting go of the past! How your own in-house telecom guy will be your problem!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

One of the biggest issues a State will face in implementing it’s Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership could be its own staff. Having educated resources on your staff that know telecommunications could be one of your biggest stumbling blocks. Why? Allow me to explain.

If the State is initiating a Public Private Partnership, the priority of that business relationship is balancing needs, risk and advancements. Everyone gets to a point where they feel they have to do it themselves because know one else knows their pain.  The fact of the matter is that such viewpoints actually deprive the effort of forward movement. At some point we have to realize that we don’t have all the answers, plus, the old saying holds true, “you touch it you own it.” Essentially, owning it means you take on all the risk. How do you move this forward then?

At a point in a Public Private Partnership, weather being submissive to your part, or forcefully shown the answer, we all realize that the balance is what is more important. When you focus on the technology, how sexy it may be, you get drawn away from the need to balance the model. Technology is just the facilitator to your service needs. The technology doesn’t drive your business, it is a tool to accomplish what you need so that you can concentrate on your model. In this case the tool is LTE, microwave, fiber and supportive technologies.

In order to keep your eye on the “business requirements” people, and organizations, need to know where they play in the bigger picture. Anyone can commission a few technical “experts” and say they can do the technology themselves, when the fact is, by taking on that role they take on the risk, which means, if it succeeds you own it, but, it also means if it fails you own it. This has typically been the issue with past, large, complex, telecom jobs going in house. As I pointed out in my dissertation back in 2009, it is not wise to mix business models when it comes to telecoms. Whether it be a Public Safety entity, State government, or Utility, they all require the telecom tool to get their job done, the issue is that telecom needs it’s own business case in order to make it successful; it’s the best way to maximize your money and your investment. As we have witnessed in the past trying to get a Utility, or a Police Chief, to take on large-scale telecoms they had competing business needs. At what point does a Police Chief, realize that they either; need to be a telecom company; or be a Police Chief? This is where balancing needs and sharing telecommunication requirements becomes important.

Allow the organizations to focus on their traditional business roles, then establish the risk with the areas of their expertise. In the Public Safety Broadband Program, and utilizing the Myers Model™, this balancing of needs, risks, and the advancements, are all properly placed in their appropriate roles and responsibilities. The model means that a State, or Federal Agency, is not the best choice when designing, constructing and operating a broadband company at the State level. The model, specifically, allows the State to create a broadband company that is only focused on the needs of Public Safety. The main area of concern for a State Governor, and FirstNet, will be board control over that entity, and how much they are willing to give up to meet their broadband telecom needs. We are at the cusp of solving a lot of the State’s prior issues when it came to centralizing fiber optic projects, broadband access to rural and data consolidation and manipulation.

The Myers Model™ meets, 100%, of the requirements, as laid out in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act. In actuality, the model exceeds the requirements of the law to the advantage of the State and the Country.

But…I’m…..

Just some guy and a blog.

FirstNet could learn from a small town School Board – who is actually the servant and who is the master?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I had a very interesting meeting, conference call, with FirstNet Acting GM, and his leadership staff, which included representatives from their financial, cost modeling, and most likely, silent in the room, legal teams. Regardless the meeting started out very well. As I went through presenting my slides on how FirstNet, the States, and the creation of private interest could work in unison to deliver a very cost effective, creative and self-sustaining Public Private Partnership model, which I might add works great for the carriers, visions started popping in my head, which led to more visions and so on. The first vision was what the hell are we doing here. The second vision was who was leading whom in the discussion; and then the vision of how FirstNet could actually learn from a small local school board.
A school board is made up of a number of elected officials, called “Trustees”, of whom I am one. I stress the word “Trust in Trustee”. We are tasked with watching over the financial impacts on the school district and vote on large expenditures. The school board has only one employee…the Superintendent — essentially a CEO. The Superintendent is in charge of conveying the strategy and getting approval from the board so that he can administer the district. The board is made up of citizens who are sworn in as “Public Servants”. We actually take an Oath to defend the Constitution and follow the law. The board reports to the taxpaying community and maintains a watchful eye over the welfare of the children and their education. We weren’t some magical group of people empowered to make decisions without adhering to the rule of opens meetings act, the local community, and the election process…in short, I am not the all-powerful Oz here, I’m just a citizen who was entrusted by other citizens to keep track of expenditures of the school district. If I do a poor job then I get voted out.
FirstNet is very much the same, only the context of how it executes has been skewed with visions of being a commercial carrier, or believing it needs to be one. FirstNet was entrusted, took an Oath just like a school board, with the task to monitor and track the advancement of the Public Safety Broadband Network and its implementation…. that’s all.  Nowhere in the legislation does it say anything about FirstNet becoming a carrier, nor does it empower it to do so. The FirstNet Board is a Board Corporate that reports to NTIA and the Department of Commerce, who ultimately reports to the President. As an elected official the President, is suppose to, report to the American Citizen. Respectfully, FirstNet is also charged with watching after the spectrum allocated to Public Safety…. once again there is that word…”Public”.
I ask this question, if FirstNet reports to the NTIA; the NTIA reports to the DOC, who in turn reports to the President; and the President reports to the American Citizen; doesn’t the grouping of American Citizens insinuate “Public”? Also if FirstNet is mandated to watch over the spectrum allocated to “Public” Safety, who also happens to report to the Public Citizens of a State, is that the definition of “Public Servants”? That word “Public” comes up a lot, so does “Master”.
So when the organization head of the FirstNet management team starts asking, “how much revenue can the commercial carriers bring in” while partnering with FirstNet, have we lost focus on what the network is all about? Once again these “Public Servants” report to the citizen taxpayers as well as Public Safety. It may be just me, but should the citizen, or “Public”, question the actions of its servant? Not the other way around? When did the “Public Servant” become the Master? I’m not trying to stir up trouble, or make anybody look bad, I’m just highlighting what I witnessed. By stating the obvious maybe FirstNet can get back on track and eliminate the perception of partnering with carriers; trying to be a carrier; and collecting revenue like a “National Carrier”. But, when you hear the words firsthand, it stirs up some defensive posturing. 
It’s quite simple; The FirstNet Board is just like a School Board, and the GM is just like the School District’s Superintendent, they all report to the taxpayer. Otherwise, why call them “Public Servants”? Why not call them AT&T, Verizon or some other carrier name?
If a very reasonable case is being made, by an individual citizen (one of many Masters), to the management staff of FirstNet (Public Servants), a case vetted through numerous States, of which, has no impacts on the taxpayers (which is usually a good thing) and is widely supported, then I ask, who is actually the servant and who is the master? By making my case I must have struck a chord, because all of sudden I was challenged, “how is the State going to get its spectrum”? I’m not quite sure how to take that comment. Was that a threat? Who was the threat meant for? My personal view, I think the comment was a challenge to the State’s. Go ahead and try to “Opt Out”; put your plan together; “how will you get your spectrum?” You need to come through me. I have warned about such behavior in earlier articles.
The idea of trying to listen to carriers for advice does not mean you should actually become a carrier. The spectrum, and thus the network, is for Public Safety, not a “National Carrier”. I understand the stress, but things need to change if FirstNet, at the Federal level, will succeed. The State can execute without FirstNet, so, I ask again, who is really the Servant and who is the Master? Why would a single federal entity try to cut the State out of using its own spectrum so that it can do what the legislative act asks – “Jobs Creation and Middle Class Tax Relief Act” – I stress “Jobs Creation” and “Tax Relief”, which my P3 model addresses wholeheartedly?  Being a “National Carrier” will not align with the Act, in fact, it could be construed as being unlawful, or even criminal. Is that what the investigation is uncovering? As one State Official once told me, “someone is going to jail over this”; maybe he was onto something. 
“I am building a National Carrier here!” (GM)
If the D-Block spectrum was originally allocated to Public Safety, and maybe I missed something in some meeting somewhere, but when did FirstNet become the owners of the spectrum? I thought Public Safety is the owner and the majority of their work happens locally within a State. If that were the case then why wouldn’t the State gets its spectrum? Will FirstNet try to fight to keep the State from getting its spectrum? Will they try to manipulate to “get something out of the deal”? What happens to the purpose of building a “Public Safety” network? Will FirstNet decide to stand against Public Safety in order to force its plan of becoming a National Carrier and generating “revenue”? Who actually wins in the situation – State, FirstNet, carriers, or the taxpayer? Once again, I thought FirstNet was to watch over the spectrum as it deploys the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network. I don’t think all the hard work done by the Public Safety community, in getting their spectrum, had envisioned FirstNet being a “National Carrier” — as the GM stated. If I recall this was brought up in the very first meeting of FirstNet, thus the point was stressed, “just to have the carriers consult”. (Sam Ginn)
I will give TJ the benefit of the doubt and leave the political fights between the pro-politicians – if there is such a thing. My guess is that he said it out of frustration and was only exhibiting emotions related to all the work they have completed to justify their carrier plan — only to be told that all that work may have been done in vain. When someone stands strong on a vision, for so long, they feel obligated to defend it at all cost, unfortunately it may have been a fight they were never supposed to engage in. No one said being a “Public Servant” was a glamorous job. 

Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet – Bill D’Agastino jumping ship? Carrier perception kills their plans?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

So how do you curtail your image of being a carrier driven business model for FirstNet? Well you get rid of your perceived carrier GM first. The real question is who will be next? Any guesses? How do I know this – because I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

With Bill D’Agastino stepping away from FirstNet, for personal reasons, what does it really mean? How will it impact the slow moving progress so far? In actuality I think it helps. By pushing the carrier model aside, and focusing on the State based Public Private Partnership model, FirstNet can now move forward at a much faster pace. I’m not saying Bill was the reason for the blockage, the blockage was the perception, which may, or may not, have been the case. The perception of FirstNet was all about the influential carrier relationships, which spooked almost everyone in the Public Safety community. With Bill gone FirstNet can start to attack that perception head-on. TJ Kennedy, Acting GM now, comes with a Public Safety background and has enough telecom insight to be effective… and he’s not a carrier guy.

With a P3 the State only needs guidance from FirstNet about the technical interoperability standards, and its approved vendor list, something that has been going on for quite some time now in Denver. For the modeling aspect,  all FirstNet needs to do is back the P3 concept of State execution then take a share in the State’s ownership model. By formulating some templates, or guidelines, around how the model should work, would help. It’s not necessary for FirstNet to dictate what can and can’t be done, that’s what the written law does, rather they should focus on the framework of the P3 (Myers Model™) and how it should be executed within a given State. Once the State outlines its P3 business plan, they can then seek approval by the FCC/FirstNet to release the spectrum. Furthermore, FirstNet itself can start to focus on its own P3 framework for executing a national structure for control centers and data-centers in support of the national broadband rollout. Think of it as layers of control. The bottom layer is the local layer within a State and the top layer is FirstNet covering all States.

In the end, its time to move on and accept the model for what it can do. Many States are now moving forward in understanding the Myers Model™ and how it can be deployed, which is good, inherent in that adoption will be the State taking control of its own future, and, in a more expeditious manner. By administering the model a State can do a lot more than just build a Public Safety network, it can foster job growth, private investment and true ownership to the whole economic impacts within the State.

But then again I’m….

Just some Guy and a Blog

FirstNet — States to Opt-Out…..not a tough road to follow…just the most profitable for the State and FirstNet!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I just read the following article entitled:“IWCE panel: Preparation key to states making good opt-in/opt-out decision on FirstNet (Mar 31, 2014 Donny Jackson | Urgent Communications)”.There is one thing that always gets overlooked when anyone speaks about the “Opt-Out” scenario – revenue. “Money is the root of all evil”, said by a man named Michael Myers. 
If I were a commercial carrier, or a large vendor, why would I be interested in the National Public Safety Broadband Network – FirstNet? Obviously it’s to get more money. Whether it’s selling a box, protecting your turf, or just plain old greed, the fact of the matter is that all of these things are rooted in the mindset of acquiring more money. Not rocket science here. But why is it that vendors, large government contractors and commercial carriers would be so interested in equipping “a national footprint of roughly 5 Million Public Safety Responders”? A network built holistically across every square inch of the United States, and our 6 territories? Seems to be a little lop-sided on the amount of money needed to build it versus the return on the available pool of users, especially when there is all this talk about not having enough money.
These players cloak their interest under the guise of “supporting our Public Safety Community” when in fact the real reason for the interest is all about the spectrum. Why would a commercial carrier, that did $29 Billion covering 100 Million users last year alone, be interested in this measly amount of users? The reason they made $29 Billion last year was based on the fact that the services were all delivered through a scattering of spectrum channels. How would I increase my revenue when the cost of the handset and the service options keep dropping in price? It’s simple; I consolidate my spectrum into the most valuable bands; then eliminate the less-profitable assets that support obscure spectrum bands.
Then comes along the pristine beaches soaked in 20 MHz of the D-Block Band 14 spectrum, allocated by law, to the Public Safety Community. As a carrier I understand that, as I consolidate my spectrum assets, it would be great if I could grab the best spectrum on the planet to further my profitability across the penetrating designs of LTE that bring in bandwidth hungry money making services. The future of profit within the wireless space is all about the services that will run on top of the spectrum – not owning the infrastructure anymore. What does this have to do with FirstNet?
FirstNet, the controllers of the D-Block spectrum, are failing to understand the money that the network can generate – or maybe they do understand — and thus are planting seeds for a takeover by the carriers. You can believe any conspiracy theory you like, but rest assures that a $29 Billion company knows exactly what this spectrum means. The fact of the matter is that FirstNet controls the spectrum, but the States actually own it. You can’t deliver a broadband wireless platform without the land it covers; else all you own is a piece of paper.
Why not let the States utilize the spectrum as the commercial carriers would? Why not let the States capitalize on the potential revenue of the spectrum for themselves, focused on delivering a solid hardened infrastructure of a wireless solution? Well because the carriers, the vendors and the big government contractors want the spectrum, thus the money, for themselves.
If I were a vendor, or commercial carrier, I would definitely see the potential of the moneymaking machine of the D-Block 700MHz spectrum. Who can blame them? These commercial carriers, vendors and large government contractors report to shareholders, shareholders that include you and me. I would expect no less for my investments. Thus, FirstNet would be a great opportunity to capture as much of that potential cash when the client, who owns it, doesn’t understand the capitalistic model of capturing its profitability. Matter of fact why not exploit and cloud the topic based on a shroud of secrecy “for the benefit of Public Safety”? Essentially the term bait-and-switch comes to mind. Bait them with the notion of having just cause in supporting Public Safety, then switch it later on when they have control of the assets. It’s like swindling a homeowner at a garage sale out of a painting that you know is worth millions, but in this case we are talking Billions. This is what we are seeing when it comes to these presentations on “Opt Out being a tough road”.
The fact of the matter is that FirstNet is not about the cash, but rather using its capability to generate cash to build and sustain our Public Safety infrastructure as a priority, infrastructure that nobody wants to own, but always want to reap its benefits. The truth of the matter is that there is no “Opt Out”. The term was fabricated at the outset of the FirstNet Board, and was only used to quell some of the detractors to the Federal Government leading the effort. You can read the Act, in its full color, and see for yourself that the term “Opt Out” is not in it. We just need for FirstNet, and the States, to understand the value of the spectrum and then adequately adjust the consumption of its technology so that we can gain from its potential. The potential use of this spectrum could foster much more than what we are talking about today. If you take the blinders off, and view it as a carrier, you too can see its potential to fund the entire build and its long-term management. The only way to benefit from the use of the spectrum, to its full advantage, is only through true Public Private Partnerships at the State level — the Myers Model™.
Just some guy and a blog…. 

FirstNet – Assets, assets, assets, we all like big assets and we cannot lie!

/ drmikemyers / 1 Comment
I hear everyone talking about assets; assets this, assets that, we all like big assets we cannot lie. Or was that a song? It is easy to believe that existing assets are the way to go when considering the build for FirstNet. The reality of those assets being used is minimal. Allow me to explain…
There is more to the equation than just the technical aspect when considering a tower site. A typical cell site for a carrier is designed around 8-hour battery backup incase of outage, so all we need is to add more batteries or a diesel generator…right? Wrong, in actuality the main issues will not be the batteries, although is a pretty hefty cost item, the primary issue of FirstNet’s network will be security. Each site will require video and access controls; at least two orders of perimeter security; high mounting of equipment (best to be pole mounted); some cases floating platforms in flood plains; and redundant power sources. These are just a few. I think you get the message. I’m not even going into Cyber Security yet. 
Even if the cell site — owned by the carrier, tower company, or individual — has all the batteries, and meets all the hardening aspects, how do you cut the carrier, tower company, or owner, off from accessing the secure site, where as their own contractors need to be cleared before the can enter the site, let alone the communication HUT?  After all, in most cases we will be sharing those towers with multiple carriers. We can’t have some rouge contractor on the site implanting listening devices on the critical communication ingress and egress points. It’s bad enough the wireless signals have to be fully encrypted transmissions; we can’t take the risk on espionage, or sabotage, with someone accessing the site to penetrate within the perimeter of the communications topology…. let alone we haven’t even started talking about the centralized point of communications for the power grid. Anyone heard about the attacks on the electrical sub-stations in California? (Hackers want to exploit Power Grid) If anyone takes out the power grid, we’re all doomed. 
The fact of the matter is that even the very best existing tower asset realistically will not meet the standard, so we either save the money, time and heartache now and commit to a stand-alone, hardened, new tower site design, or we complicate it with a vetting process of thousands of existing assets when in the end they won’t meet standard anyway. Complicating the issue with existing assets is not going to help. That doesn’t mean we ignore those assets, it just means we have to take special care when considering them as viable assets for FirstNet. Just look at LA-RICS… there are plenty of commercial assets available, instead all the towers are new and placed on Police and Fire land. Which by the way, if the bid for LA-RICS was awarded at $179 Million, well then $179 Million / 232 towers = $770,000 a site. Just to put that into perspective, that’s 7 times the cost of a typical commercial cell-site. All the sites in LA were on Public Safety property and in a flat coverage zone of the LA basin. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what those numbers will look like in the rural mountains or forest covered settings of the United States. If the carriers can’t afford to build their own towers, at a $100K apiece, in the rural areas; why would we think FirstNet could do any better?
But then again I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – Could the Public Safety Broadband Network be the answer that Netflix is looking for?

/ drmikemyers / 1 Comment
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 was signed by President Obama back in February of 2011. The Act allocates 20MHz of the D-Block spectrum to Public Safety. In short, all “Public Safety Services Organizations” will get an all-encompassing private broadband LTE network, using the exact same technology you see being deployed for AT&T, Verizon and all major carriers. That little “LTE” label on the top corner of your cell phone is the same technology Public Safety will get; but in this case their network will be private, 100% geographic coverage of the United States, plus our 6 Territories, and will be truly hardened to withstand natural disasters. Another important characteristic of this network will to classify the network traffic for pre-emptive and interruptible services during an emergency.
The network will be based on a simple solution of prioritization, where as, Priority 1 is dedicated to First Responders; Priority 2 will be dedicated to Public Safety Support Organizations, such as Utilities, Transportation, Agriculture and the likes; and finally, as depicted in the Act of 2012, the network will allow for Priority 3 services, where the underutilized, or unused, bandwidth can be allocated to commercial services, specifically in the rural areas. Why is Priority 3 Traffic a big deal? Well let me explain.

In the law it states that FirstNet cannot sell, or market, telecommunication services directly, but through the Public Private Partnership they can, most particularly through the private investment side of the Public Private Partnership, where as, they can lease services by bidding access to the rural, and metro, constituents via lease agreements with the actual market players, i.e. AT&T, Verizon, Google and/or NetFlix. Example would be a P3 in the State of Oklahoma where as all the commercial carriers, ISPs and cable companies can bid for access to the States residents through the Public Private Partnership that runs the States Public Safety Broadband Network. This enables productive revenue producing operations, plus opens the market to competitive bidding.   

The traffic traversing the network, as Priority 3 customers, will be bandwidth fillers while there are no emergencies going on in a given geographic area, especially in the rural parts of the nation. It is believed that only the carriers will bid on the commercial access to Priority 3 users, which is not true, access to the Priority 3 traffic could actually be a really good play for NetFlix, or Google, especially if they want to avoid charges from their competition, i.e. ComCast, Time Warner, AT&T Uverse and Verizon FiOS. Essentially, no network access is free, but all-inclusive broadband coverage through the PSBN architecture would be a great revenue source to help fund “self-sustainment” for Public Safety Broadband (also in the legislation). Is this a threat to commercial carriers? Well yes and no.
Access to Americans is being fought in the halls of the Legislature when it comes to Net Neutrality and Universal Access, but those notions have changed with the new FCC Chairman. But, is that a bad thing, or just an acknowledgement that past battles on Universal Access were old school and that a new paradigm is forming? With the aggregation of the Universal Service Fund, BTOP (Broadband Technology Opportunities Program) and the FirstNet funding, we are actually experiencing a convergence of the technology as it naturally gravitates towards an all IP data centric architecture model with centralized wireline fiber optic networks, wireless broadband solutions and pervasive connections to all Americans. Essentially, FirstNet is actually solving the great divide between owners of the broadband infrastructure and the actual streaming services, such as NetFlix.
FirstNet, or the Public Safety Broadband Network, is the first network to encompass all the characteristics of broadband infrastructure implementing under the social necessity, rather than revenue producing rates per user paradigms — essentially becoming the 5th Utility for America.
I covered this in an earlier article where I raised the idea that FirstNet would in fact do just that – create an all-encompassing wireline and wireless broadband solution — much like we see for our water and power infrastructure in the United States. It becomes complimentary as the carriers continue their push away from owning the infrastructure and moving into content, i.e. streaming movies, music and data. Another aspect of this convergence is that the Priority 2 users are also driven towards wireless broadband with such programs as isolated, and secure, demands for transportation networks; power distribution upgrades called SMART Grid; and the coverage requirements for forest fires in the west. In short, the convergence into wireless broadband is driven by the market demands of the users, and in this case the users of the PSBN will also integrate the likes of NetFlix and Google. As we are already starting to see, the development of the Public Safety Broadband Network is actually creating the hardened infrastructure of universal access to all Americans.  I see this as a good thing. Nobody wants to own all the costly assets when it comes to commercial infrastructure, but everyone wants to gain from its inherent capabilities of perpetual broadband service.
In the end FirstNet is the seed for Universal Access where as the priorities of access are driven by need rather than revenue, essentially putting all the priority of open and preemptive access, controlled through one fixed wireline and wireless broadband solution that supports all Public Safety needs first. If a disaster happens the First Responders will have all the power to take the network over, which is not the case today. Today Public Safety would be trying to take over a commercial operation for its emergency needs impacting the commercial entities revenue source; let alone the fact that these networks are not hardened to meet Public Safety demands.  
FirstNet’s network is how the infrastructure of broadband technology should be designed, where as, we focus on the social need of Public Safety, yet still remain open to commercial capitalism. If I were a carrier, I would be pushing to invest in this strategy as fast as possible. The cost of managing your own infrastructure will continue to drive against margin all while the price of services continues to fall. You can’t get any better than letting a Public Private Partnership drive your ability to access all the rural geography of the US while not constructing a single tower out of your own money. As it is today the cost of the commercial infrastructure is already starting to outpace the revenue it produces. 
The Myers Model™ is the first model of Public Private Partnership that meets all the demands of the Jobs Creation Act, while at the same time balancing the needs of all involved. It’s a model that must be considered when moving forward.
Then again I’m….
Just some guy and a blog…..