Author: drmikemyers

FirstNet — LA-RICS Funding Plan….may be a little weak.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
LA-RICS: Funding Plan Transmittal Letter and Draft Funding Plan
Below is my review of the LA-RICS funding plan for their Public Safety Broadband Network. These are just my own thoughts of the posted plan and how they relate to an earlier article I wrote entitled “This is how LA-RICS will fail…“. The point of the earlier article was about the contract terms having an impact of funding the solution, which will ultimately delay, or stop, the planned Motorola contract. For this analysis I am only commenting on the Executive Summary section of the LA-RICS Funding Plan. I could add comments to the whole plan, but being that the main topics are covered in the Exec Summary, why waste the time. 
Here are my points of concern, and they should be yours as well, you should note this plan is to be delivered to the “Cities” within the County and is accompanied by their written funding plan. You can find this letter and attachment through the link above. In short, to justify their funding plan they intend on getting the money from the Cities, within LA County. My interpretation is that this may not align with the law as it was written. In fact defining a City as a “Public Safety Services Organization” is weak and believing that the City has the funding resources to pay for such deployments may be a tremendous risk. 
— Page 8 —
Highlight, Mar 18, 2014:
‘The Funding Plan must identify “funding sources and mechanisms” (Art. V, Sec. 5.01.). In particular, specification of a “means or formula for determining the timing and sequencing of construction” (Art. II, Sec. 2.05 (b) (1)), and an “allocation of costs among the Members, subscribers and other funding sources” (Art. II, Sec. 2.05 (b) (2).) is required. Further, the Funding Plan must provide a “development schedule and phasing plan, which will permit the maximum feasible participation by Members.” (Art. V, Sec. 5.01). This latter requirement in the Agreement recognizes the great diversity among Members in the caliber of their LMR and existing broadband systems, as well as in their ability to internally support capital improvements and maintenance.’
When the construct of “funding sources and mechanisms” was added to the Jobs Creation Act it was not intended for cities — you need to reach further into the Act where it stresses “Public Safety Service Organizations”. Although cities are considered viable entities to be a part of an emergency they are not the leading organizations, nor are they First Responders. The fact of the matter this plan only focus’ on the weakest contributor to the model and not the actual entities it should be focusing on. What City do you know of, especially in California, that has the money to pay for such things? I can bet all the gold in the world that no City will just jump out and say, “hey, we would love to pay for your boondoggle, thats what we’re here for!” The fact is that the only reason the Authority (LA-RICS) is looking at the cities is because they are tied to the tax base, which relates to another item I will comment on shortly, first lets just go with the flow.
As I have illustrated in the past, such a business model gets its cash from the taxpayers. Now it may be just me, but isn’t the title of the legislation called “The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012?” I mean if it is, shouldn’t we at least make an attempt to not tax the middle class? Then again if we are actually taxing the upper class and the lower class then I guess we’re ok. 
Highlight, Mar 18, 2014:
“The Funding Plan relies on grant monies for the initial construction of the LMR and LTE Systems. Member Fees are to be the revenue source for the operations and maintenance (O&M) as well as all other capital costs.”
How many handsets do you think a City needs? If you push a 100 I would be surprised. Some cities, like LA, will have more, but who are the ones that really need the handsets — City Board Members or Public Safety? Why put the decision for applying any “membership fee’s” to a City Board? Well because they are the taxing authority. Why not focus on the actual Public Safety organizations? I’m not aware of too many Police, Fire and EMS programs within the City that are willing to rely on an elected board to be the ones driving the user fees. The boards may approve budgets for their local First Responders, but typically such decisions are up to the Chief’s when it comes to administering that budget. As a matter of fact, and being that I am a citizen within a City, I would feel uncomfortable if the Board were making administration decisions, especially as it relates to Public Safety Communications.  Even if LA-RICS were to be successful in implementing a City based user fee system, do we actually think we will have enough users? 
In the legislation it also states “self-sustainment”, such user fees, as illustrated in this plan, even state that they will fall short if they lack participation. To me this would be a big risk and will ultimately fail to meet the law advocating “self-sustainment”. Plus, how many city boards believe they are First Responders? Isn’t the network for “Public Safety Services Organizations?” Last I checked I never came across a city board as being someone who would respond to any type of emergency, unless you believe that it is an emergency when the board has to address the ascetics of the streets, or zoning of a new shopping mall. Then again, I sit on a school board that chose to build a $60 million high-school football stadium, when it should have been focused on rebuilding its freshman campus. I guess in Texas we just have differing opinions on what a real emergency means. 
Highlight, Mar 18, 2014:
“Voter assessments are not practical given the high cost of a ballot campaign coupled with high voter requirements to pass a special revenue measure.”
Let me get this straight…the entire funding plan is based on taking money from the City and their resident taxpaying voters, who in fact, this same taxing authority was elected by the same taxpaying voters that we’re now trying to avoid? It may be just me, but is that considered larceny, insider trading, or something? So if I’m a teenager and I get an allowance from my Dad, I can approach my Dad and do a deal with him to take money from my 5 brothers and sisters without them knowing? Man I can get my own iPad after all!  
The fact of the matter is that once an elected official is asked to take money from his/her constituents, without their knowledge, could mean a short time in office and a long-extended stay in prison. Having a lawsuit directed at a City Board is one thing, but having a lawsuit directed personally is a whole other avenue of avoidance. 
The City Boards fall under the laws of elected officials, that process can be unforgiving when it comes to administering taxpayer money. I would find it interesting for any Board Member to step out on the limb for such an exercise, even if they go to a majority vote. But then again, I have seen worse happen. Just the Open Meetings Act alone will drive enough pain for the elected officials to avoid such an offer.
— Page 9 —
Highlight, Mar 18, 2014:
“The Funding Plan is predicated on the assumption of full participation of every member of the Authority.”
That’s a stretch wouldn’t you think? What happens if half the Cities want to think about it for a few months, and the Board is driven by State law to advertise through their Board Agenda process, what happens to the project schedule? Better yet, what Board is willing to break State law and risk another lawsuit that introduces even more time delays? I mean don’t we have a 15 month schedule that has to be met? The fact that we also have to go through leasing and zoning Boards, as well as City Boards, could introduce some unavoidable time delays. Wouldn’t that impact the grant funding process as well? Do we still think 15 months will be met? 
Let’s make it even simpler: at 231 sites, all over LA County, just to cure the concrete takes a week (5 days), thats 1155 days, thats 231 * 5 days, not including weekends, we are in California after all. At 15 months we have 300 days, thats 15 * 20 days per month, yes, does not represent weekends or holidays, that means I have to be curing concrete at a rate of 4 (3.85) sites a day in order to meet schedule, that’s 1155 days / 300 days = 3.85, or 4. You have to remember, that’s if we start on day one following contract NTP (Notice to Proceed). If we introduce the leasing, zoning and City Board approvals, do we still think we will meet a 15 month timeframe? In actuality such a tight schedule would mean that 21 simultaneous sites would have to be commissioned a day — not just cured — to meet a 14 month timeline. Nothing better than a little salt with that coffee. 
— Page 10 —
Highlight (yellow), Mar 18, 2014, 11:45 AM:
Alternatively, early participating members will be absorbing the costs of non-participants resulting in a higher cost for the early members. 
Each year an agency does not become a member or join LA-RICS, its allocated but unpaid cost share of the LTE hard match and both LMR and LTE capital replacement will accumulate.
Authority or a member agency incurs carrying cost of loans or funds for advanced funding to pay the LMR and LTE agreements, the buy-in charges would contribute toward repaying these carrying costs and other advanced payments made by early adopters in absorbing costs of non-participants. 
The funding plan makes a projection of cash flow for project expenses based on construction milestones and system operability, and the impact on members’ fees. 
First, holding a gun to someone’s head will always turn out bad. 
Second, and I may be wrong, but the plan doesn’t address anything about agencies, it was talking about cities. We may have a bit of confusion in that the LA-RICS board may be thinking they will have agency support, but instead the plan only addresses the City contributions. 
Third, haven’t we heard a lot about this in the last few years? Those that can afford to pay help pay for those who can’t. In this case though, if a financially strapped City finds out that they actually need the service, but don’t have the tax base to fund it, plus they aren’t even considered a viable Public Safety Service Organization, why should they be forced to pay for something they already can’t afford? Heck why not just force the carriers to pay for it being that they get revenue off the same City residents in the same coverage area? That was a joke. Don’t try that at home. The fact of the matter is such a reliance on participating Cities will be disastrous. What happens if the board tries eminent domain over its cities? How many cities are going to really like that? The NEPA requirements that were waived still do not outweigh a cities board structure of approvals, do we just force them to capitulate? 
I think focusing on actual emergency support “agencies” would be better suited for this effort and should be the focus of the potential contributors, not the cities. Better yet, if the Authority reconsiders, they could always use the Myers Model™ to bring in Private Investment to completely fund it. Regardless, the Authority needs to create an attraction as to why anyone should be a part of their plan. Just because the Authority thinks it will get the money from the agencies, doesn’t mean they will actually be interested. We need to address their needs, not just try and force their hand. Doing so will put the timeline at risk. Which agency would they target – FBI, INS, DHS, EMS, or all of the above? These agencies already have support from the taxpaying base, and they already pay for broadband services form the commercial carriers, we need to make it more attractive for this user base. I’m afraid the Cities may not be the wisest of choices when seeking a funding source for LA-RICS.
Doing the Myers Model™ (Public Private Partnership) can help in this case by eliminating the time crunch of delivery and can help focus the Authorities needs onto a more attractive user base.
But then again I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet may be taking too much on themselves — allow me to explain.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
When you look at the carrier market over the last 40 years (commercial handheld market) you will find that it was established under a limited geographic penetration plan — in short they started with what they could get. They didn’t start with an actual nationwide footprint with all encompassing spectrum. The carriers had inspirations to get to that point, but the return on their investment aligned naturally to target the population densities – they targeted the cash flow. FirstNet, this is a lesson to be learned!
Site acquisition became a big thing back then — still is actually. The concept of tower ownership has grown stagnate due to the fact that most of the coverage needed to build the commercial markets has been achieved, driven by demand as the carriers modeled their return on investment strategies. Growth is always a possibility, but unless we start creating another major NFL city, I’m afraid that most of the commercial sector has been built out, horizontally, covering all the major population zones – 42% of the landmass or 98% of the population.  Effectively, the carriers have equilibrium that best meets their Return On Investment (ROI). In actuality, we are starting to see the carrier’s shrink when it comes to owning their own infrastructure, i.e. AT&T Crown Castle sale. The consolidation into all IP technologies has eliminated the need for the traditional switched based networks, and is instead, focused on wireless data driven platforms, i.e. broadband LTE.
Another aspect of that consolidation was the result of converging wireless protocols. All the major carriers in the United States, and the world, are now adopting the LTE roadmap. Being that those very same carriers drive all of the telecommunications market space, it is inherent that they also drive the production of communications gear and services, i.e. VOIP, VoLTE, handsets, thus the issues with getting VoLTE for Public Safety as well as the manufacture of hardened handsets. Without the demand for such services, Public Safety will never be able to go against the tide, but, we are seeing changes in the VoLTE space, especially with the exponential growth associated with VOIP services, the alternative to traditional landline and cell service.
The Vertical growth pattern in the commercial carrier market is another story. Stacking the tower with multiple carriers is what turns the big profit for the tower ownership models, where as they see more and more of the little start-up wireless voice service companies taking hold. Essentially, these small companies have a demand for their own tower infrastructure, but on a much smaller scale than a carrier, or they actually ride the carrier’s infrastructure (that the carriers are moving away from) using what’s known as a Managed Virtual Private Network service, i.e. they buy bandwidth from AT&T, or Verizon, and in return have them manage their network for them so that they can just sell voice services. Companies like Straighttalk, Vonage and others, fall in this category.
For FirstNet the tower model will not work, unless a State, or the Feds, want to plow a bunch of taxpayer money into companies like Crown Castle, or American Tower, where as those companies can hardened their towers to meet the requirements of FirstNet. This is especially present if FirstNet does not fully develop the concept of the Public Private Partnership (P3) with the States. On the other hand, if they do fully implement a sound Public Private Partnership approach to this deployment, then the economic advantage to FirstNet, the States and the taxpayers will be tremendous; not to mention the commercial lending and private equity markets. This renders the need for cost justification to be moot, in that the private investors actually pay for the build, as well as the long-term management. What I am saying is that the State, and FirstNet, avoid the need of having the taxpayers pay the bill – that’s a pretty good deal if you ask me, and, it should be unavoidable. The State of Texas has instituted, into law, that any Public Private Partnership has to be considered when it’s to the benefit of the State, essentially making it a crime for anyone within the State Government that doesn’t consider the solution and fails to implement the P3 if it actually is better for the taxpayers and the State (ref Texas Public Private Partnership Statute – S.B. 1048 [Currently codified in the Texas Government Code – Chapters 2267 & 2268])
By adopting the P3 concept, most importantly the Myers Model™, the baseline for a sound structure of a business model can take hold. As with any successful P3, and the corner stone of the Myers Model™, is a balance of user, owner and investor requirements with their individual needs, this is what drives the implementation. The amount of work that FirstNet may envision as being necessary to build this nationwide network, may actually be must simpler, and less complex, than they have come to believe.
Along with the balance of needs comes the inherent ability to balance workloads for delivery. For example, FirstNet mustn’t worry itself with trying to develop a sound design for the network when the process of analyzing inventories, hardening requirements, and potential revenue streams, will generate the specifications required by all entities; this becomes the baseline design requirements for a statewide RFP, i.e. hardening, bandwidth and coverage requirements (not to mention service level agreements and the like). The State must complete the analysis and data collection assessments. They fundamentally have better access to information, as well as persuasive control of internal State agencies and users. In short, as it pertains to design, all FirstNet really needs to convey is the conceptual design characteristics, that must be met by each State, and then insure that such requirements are stated within the States soon to be advertised RFP, i.e. FirstNet demands the use of approved vendors, minimum hardening characteristics, coverage, bandwidth and minimum service level agreement frameworks.  Why over complicate the process? Therefore, how the State executes its own business model will be drafted per the terms of FirstNet’s relationship with the State’s P3.
The fruit of the State data collection and analysis will generate the design that is needed, which it should. The States bid will also encompass the requirements of FirstNet requests, and then advertised as a commercial investment and delivered via the Fund — Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (F-DBOM) bid method. Essentially, this generates the scope and specification requirements needed for a Private Equity investment team to consider in designing the State’s network. I can guarantee you that no private investment house will commit any cash to any opportunity without getting a very detailed design, to include the possibility of using existing assets as to cut costs in their investment, therefore, as you can probably ascertain yourself, FirstNet doesn’t need to create a detailed design.
All FirstNet needs to do is specify a high-level technical concept of requirements; outline available assets for potential use; and project a recurring revenue stream from the users of the network (Federal users, States will do their own). What would be nice, is to see a standard framework that all the States can expect to receive from FirstNet, so that they can collect, analyze, assess and convey the right amount of information for the RFP – it’s sole purpose is to attract investors to pay for the statewide build out using the P3 concept.  Why statewide, and why P3?
To me it is clear as day as to what the positive aspects of the P3 can do for the State, I will illustrated it in a simple statement:
The State will invite the Private Equity market in to invest in a new broadband company by granting access to designing, building, operating and maintaining this new broadband company for the State with the sole purpose of servicing broadband to Public Safety users and related service organizations – as well as access to priority 3 commercial traffic to the highest bidder.
What is the incentive for Private Equity to make the investment? This is quite simple as well — the spectrum is worth a lot of money! The Public Safety market has solid users that exhibit stalwart, long-term demand for broadband service that meets their own needs — that includes the need to respond to an emergency, i.e. SMART Grid, High Speed Rail, etc., such demand drives long-term based Service Level Agreements that generates a strong, and attractive, cash flow. Ultimately, this cash flow is what’s attractive to private equity investors, and can be compared to the carriers with their original, and standing, business model of selling handsets to all within their target population coverage in order to meet ROI. That’s about all that the two have in common. Private equity players are in it for the return on their investment.
When all parties have the same goal to build an all encompassing, hardened, broadband solution to meet their own needs, they will all share in the workload needed to execute. FirstNet just needs to insure that all the States stay on the same sheet of paper when doing so. As I have stated in the past, FirstNet doesn’t need to paint the pants on the ants for this one. This is the only way this national build out of Public Safety Broadband will be successful.
But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet and Public Safety Broadband — what is the RoadMap for getting through this Land Navigation Course?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
“Perhaps the most important assumption in our models to date is the value of secondary use of our excess network capacity through covered leasing agreements. Focusing on and being successful in public-private arrangements to realize this value will be an important aspect in executing a sustainable business model.” (D’Agostino, Mar 2014)

OK, now that we have heard FirstNet state they will be using the Public Private Partnership model we can really start to focus on implementing the model. Man, trying to sell the Public Private Partnership Model was like trying to treat a bad case of gonorrhea – you go in standing up and you come out laying down moaning like a dog. Not that I have a personal knowledge of such an experience, but onetime I was in the hospital on Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, I was in for a bruised kidney I received during a football game, but that young Airman that was in there with me, was all talkative until they rolled him into the surgery room. I’m convinced they torture those poor guys with the pain so they won’t play anymore where there not suppose to play. All I heard was a drill, like the ones in a Dentist office, then a whole lot of moaning from that Airman as they brought him out on a rollaway bed. I cringe just thinking about it.

Chairman Ginn threw me for a loop though. I thought I heard Chairman Ginn say “we are positioned now with a roadmap to get to a business plan”? This reminds me of land navigation exercises in the Army — a whole lot of guys roaming freely through the dense brush of Ft Benning trying to find a few locations on a map. Anyone who has done landnav courses understands you can’t survive without a compass, protractor and map. What I envisioned Chairman Ginn just said was that we just found our map and it says north is this way; we’re still looking for our compass and haven’t a clue as to what a protractor is. To add to the pressure the landnav exercise has been underway for two years now – visions of being a little late came to mind.
Me personally, I was always one of the first to get all the points… correctly. I loved landnav, and anyone that has done it knows that I must be very strange to state such a thing. I would run to get all my points completed, then shelter somewhere above the encampment before I would hand in my results. I did this so that I could get some shuteye or relaxation. Night maneuvers were even better, unless the instructors were carrying their night vision and/or thermal binoculars, but I digress.
It was a tremendous relief to hear GM D’Agostino convey “the roadmap” on the call. Finally FirstNet realizes that the model of execution has to be built using a Public Private Partnership model. A word of caution, don’t get caught up in the mindset that you have to please everyone right out of the gate when it comes to things like satellite, mobility and other business models. We need to concentrate on the build-out of LTE first and do so by focusing on the template of one business model, else you risk further confusion and non-alignment. Afterwards we can discuss the satellite, mobility and application necessities. Much easier to design around what you know you have in place by using a fixed template of a design (with a few modifications) and a limited target base.
As for your direct needs to gain knowledge on the implementation of the public private partnership scenarios, I have produced plenty of material to render a high-level concept of how these things work, but they are too extensive and complex to undertake without some type of training or certification. You don’t want to execute such a model without full knowledge; else you risk the financial and execution success of your state program. 
Public Private Partnership can be very successful, but they can also be very detrimental to the States, and FirstNet’s, financial stability if they are employed incorrectly. With that in mind I‘ve been working with a small group of entrepreneurs to build a training and certification process that will enable the education and training of consultants, or State employees, on the use of the Myers Model™. This newly formed company has a large University Advisory Panel that instructs on the use and implementation of such strategies. From there you can implement the model on your own, or you can also have this firm “consult to the consultants”, by engaging them to help your team in implementing the model statewide, or nationwide.  
Each State will have the same framework of executing the Myers Model™, but all of the projects will be modified to meet their own demands and user base.
If you want more info please let me know, but remember I’m….
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet and the Public Safety Broadband Network — a silent coup is afoot?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
In a recent article by Donny Jackson of Urgent Communications entitled “Seybold: Many FirstNet contractors being selected by DOC/NTIA, not FirstNet management“, Mr. Jackson quoted Andy Seybold about the hiring process for FirstNet. If this is true could we be seeing a coup within the Administration to control FirstNet? Or maybe DOC and NTIA have some doubts about the investigation being done on the transparency and “conflicts of interest”? Or could it be that FirstNet is ill prepared to do the hiring process? Or Andy could have just rubbed someone the wrong way? All are valid viewpoints.
“Decisions regarding many FirstNet contractor positions are being made by officials from the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA), instead of being selected by FirstNet management, according to former FirstNet contractor and mobile wireless consultant Andrew Seybold.” (Jackson, March 2014)
I’ve had the entire weekend to think about this claim. What would be the reason for the NTIA and DOC to make all the hiring decisions for FirstNet? I understand the logistics of the hiring process can be daunting, but we all know that any introduction of a hiring manager into the equation means his/her interpretation of what a good candidate is. Plus, the HR process needs direction as to what is needed, who fits the mold and how much value the candidate should bring.
As it pertains to the investigation I could see where the attorneys are nervous about what is being perceived. I can definitely see where FirstNet is not prepared to handle the HR process, but what keeps tugging at me is the notion of a chaotic progression that hides the actual desire to implement a decision process, where as the DOC can introduce their own picks to take over FirstNet, essentially controlling the HR process.
By doing so, the NTIA and the DOC, are actually picking the organizations team members who will ultimately drive the organization; thus allowing them the ability to control the message and the course of events. But, the DOC and the NTIA wouldn’t act alone, or at least not without an approval from above. The next above step is the Presidents Administration. With all that is going on in Russia and around the world, I would assume that the future of FirstNet has been put in the hands of a staff member, most likely an attorney, who is making all the decisions and thus instructing the DOC as to what needs to happen.  
What if… the DOC, who was mandated by the President to take charge, actually is in a takeover bid of FirstNet and is using the chaos of the accusations to cover their tracks? It only seems logical that the Administration would see the consternation from the industry as a sign that things aren’t going well, and that maybe a few bad decisions were made, thus the need to take it over. Killing them softly comes to mind.
Put yourself in the place of the Administration. Two years ago the President instructed the Department of Commerce (DOC) to allocate the spectrum to Public Safety; then instructed them to develop the National Public Safety Broadband Network; along with that instruction they allocated $7 Billion to fund their efforts.
To kick the process off the DOC then ordered the NTIA to create the FirstNet Board, to which they handpicked all the inaugural members.  Since doing so, two years has passed and nothing has been done to create the network. The lack of a business model to build the network, based on the requirements specified in the Jobs Creation Act, are not being addressed; the States are constantly highlighting the fact that no real direction is coming out of FirstNet; questions surrounding funding are being perceived as dubious, backed by claims of lack in transparency and conflicts of interest that only fuel the fire. If I were running the show, and I had a very important election cycle coming up, I’d be getting very nervous that this debacle could actually become the nail in the coffin for our political plans.
If the plan is to take over FirstNet, then why a quite coup? Why not just publically state that you are not pleased with the progress and have decided to go a different way? Why make it into a long drawn out process, which only helps foster the fire of alternative agendas and ultimately destroys credibility within the taxpayer base?
One thing is clear; I have been in the telecoms industry for 25+ years; I’ve never seen a network take this long to get started. In the commercial world your investors would have walked on you after twelve months of no activity – and that’s being conservative. I’ve seen investors walk on the first meeting. Without a business plan you can bet they would have never even sat at the table with you, but I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet and Cooperative Federalism

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Federal Funding (Taken from Wikipedia)
I just thought this to be interesting:
“The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programs, or otherwise regulate, there are, arguably, certain incentives in the national government encouraging States to become the instruments of such national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One incentive is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another incentive is that implementation of federal programs at the state level would in principle limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.
For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws (though the national speed limit has since been repealed). See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).”
With the Public Private Partnership, most specifically the Myers Model™, you avoid this issue of Federal Funding. What would the “Minimum standard” be for Public Safety Broadband? Does the use of the allocated spectrum to Public Safety illustrate a National Program that can only be encouraged and not enforced? Or does this actually mean that the spectrum actually belongs to the States, or the People? The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012, that allocated the spectrum to Public Safety, how do you discern the relationship, where as, a State has its own Police forces, Fire and EMS programs? Does this mean that the States have all the power and control of the spectrum from the outset?

“The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (Tenth Amendment, GPO)

Just a thought by…..

Just some guy and a blog….. 

FirstNet Public Safety Broadband — LA-RICS the Great Oz has spoken! California "Opts Out"?!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Update: LA-RICS has taken the path of “the same old” when it comes to deploying their large-scale LTE network. Is anyone keeping a log of what the ups-and-downs will be along the way? It’s going to be a bumpy ride. Personally, I see rough waters ahead, especially when it comes to funding the solution long-term. No matter how much they try to hide their difficulties, the fact of the matter, the only ones that will be harmed in this endeavor will be the taxpayers — and a few consultants and vendors. You can quote me on that, LA-RICS will be a burden on the taxpayer! My question to you, do you think the State of California will be able to come up with sufficient funding to deploy PSBN to the whole State? Without hitting the taxpayers pocket?
For the entire State deployment my estimates put that figure to be between $1.5 and $2 Billion dollars in a capital build program; at least, 3500+ sites (new sites like LA-RICS); and another $150 to $200 Million a year in operations and maintenance of the network. That is peanuts to what the network is actually worth and how much money it can generate annually. But has LA-RICS just blown it? I hope LA-RICS understands it’s going to cost them around $15-$20 Million a year to operate just in their county alone. I’m sure they included that in their figures, but who’s counting? Isn’t the State already $20 Billion in debt? Ahhh, what is debt anyway? Who cares just get it built and ignore the collapse of the State’s economy? We can at least say “we did our part for the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network and for the citizens of the State”. With the future collapse of the economy, I can assure you, the State will need that Public Safety Broadband Network. Here we thought the LA Riots were bad? Just in case you aren’t following me – I’m trying to be sarcastic.
If the approved Motorola bid was at $217 $175 Million, my math may be off, but that would have been $100 $65 Million more than the bid we would have submitted while at my last employer — a bid I lead. That doesn’t include the $380 Million contract Motorola won for the LMR network as well. If the Authority’s T&Cs would have been less stringent, and actually not biased towards Motorola, the County would have had a great bid that would have at least saved the taxpayers a $100 $65 Million. You can refer to my earlier article about the T&Cs ruining their chance of a safe and viable bidding process entitled “FirstNet: this is how LA-RICS will fail” as well as the article entitled “Vendor Negotiations for the LA-RICS LTE PSBN project — First, a history lesson of LA-RICS, from an observational point-of-view!”.
In reviewing my crystal ball, I can state, that the $217 $175 Million that Mr. Mallon just put together for the project, could have been completely funded by Private Equity, thus avoiding any bonds, grants, or entitlements from the taxpayers. But, LA-RICS is comfortable in spending taxpayer money, at a premium, for a vendor who doesn’t make a single piece of LTE gear. I have to say, Motorola did choose a great partner in Ericsson though — you can’t go wrong with their LTE product. But, the judges are still out on GD (General Dynamics) being the construction crew. I’m sure GD’s pricing will be quite pricey, I’m assuming all those airplanes and ships come with a lot of overhead; then again GD will just sub-out all the construction work anyway causing a lot of passthroughs. I wonder how much the Motorola and GD mark-ups are? By comparison to the bid I led, I can safely ascertain, at least $100 $65 Million worth of overheads. Only time will tell, the board has spoken (just like Oz), so onward and upward?
In the end, I really do wish the State of California the best in achieving what it needs to survive and to be successful in its implementation for FirstNet. I really do believe that Motorola will do its best to deliver you a great LTE network — their reputation is on the line for this one. I am praying that your management team will be guided down the path of least resistance in attempting to build a very complex LTE network. Just remember, if you start to realize that your plan isn’t working, when it comes to funding, you can call me anytime for assistance. I promise not to gloat.

Does this mean that California is “Opting Out” of FirstNet? It sure does sound like it. If LA-RICS is building the network themselves then, to me, that is a clear definition of “Opt Out”.

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet and Public Safety Broadband – Premature… what did he just say?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I hope everyone is having a great day! If you haven’t noticed I’m an avid reader, especially when it comes to FirstNet. Call it sadomasochistic, or self-gratification, it’s a means to an end for my own self-fulfillment and happiness. I’m also driven piously by focusing solely on the gifts God gave me and can only hope that I can teach and reach others in a way that helps further their own happiness. With that said I read the following article by Donny Jackson of Urgent Communications, entitled “Observers anxious for more tangible signs of FirstNet progress.” J

“Even if all pieces had fallen into place perfectly and swiftly, it takes time to develop a network design and a business plan for a project of this magnitude. Such plans take even longer to develop without a qualified staff, and the hiring process has been much slower than anyone anticipated”—a fact that Ginn has cited repeatedly. (Donny Jackson, Urgent Communications)

 Any reason we need a network design right now? It doesn’t take 2-years to formulate a business plan. Heck I helped formulate a business plan just last week and it took us all of about a day. Granted we have to finalize some numbers, but in the end the context of the approach was done in a few hours. Now I’m not saying that FirstNet can do the same, because it needs to consider the thoughts of the PSAC and the States, but they can baseline the vision and then structure the numbers in a few days, or at least a few months…NOT TWO YEARS! I think FirstNet is taking lessons from the MTA in New York City by copying their efforts to build their own telecommunications network.  But, FirstNet may actually be gun-shy now…. typical behavior of a new entrant into the federal political process.  

There is no need for a network design right now; that’s like designing the cart before we know how to pay for the horse. The word “pre-mature” comes to mind, or was it preejaculate? I get confused, either way you get the idea. My recommendation would be for FirstNet to outline a template for approved technical design issues that meets their personal needs. Then let the States align those technical needs with their own to formulate a solid technical standard to build against. All boats rise with the tide. That’s all that needs to be done at this stage of pre-business planning when it comes to design.

In a standardized template, FirstNet would address the approved platforms for use, i.e. LTE, Microwave and data transport solutions, and then augment those requirements with their hardening characteristics. From there FirstNet can script the terms and conditions of the working relationship between FirstNet and the States, as well as start to investigate a projected recurring revenue path to enable self-sustainment. Such a document would outline the essentials for spectrum usage, financial responsibility and organizational governance that the States can utilize in forming its own Public Private Partnership that would inherently consider it’s own positive economic, employment and investment strategies.   There is no need to get a cost of an overall network at this point in time, because the build-out will follow the needs of the States and rolled out in a phased approach State-by-State. All we need to do is have a rough order of magnitude for the States, so that they can get a feel of what to expect from the responding Private Equity market to the States design, build, operate and maintain contract. There is a key word in that phrase we need to pay close attention too – “design”. Inherently this demonstrates that the design is done after the business-planning phase that is scripted by the State in its RFP – using SLIGP money. Why do we need FirstNet to give us a design without telling us about a business plan? They can design all they want, if there is no plan to fund it they are just spending taxpayer money and fussing over the sale of spectrum in auctions. Essentially, what the State is doing is illustrating its business plan in its RFP and letting the responses dictate the design.

The structure of a business plan is just the execution strategy of an idea to make money or sell goods. If you have a solid vision of how the network will look, and how it will be delivered, then you can augment that idea with the technical capabilities of the technology to sell it as a service. Quite simple if you ask me! It’s too easy to jump to the end of the process and focus on the sale of service (sorry all you sales people out there, have to wait a little longer before that sale). In reality we need to plant the seed first by starting with a vision, that vision then needs to be laid out in a template so that the State can take hold and execute. 

We have the vision…”100% coverage of the landmass of the United States with LTE”. (Sam Ginn)

How it executes is based on the idea of an overall business model that the States can use when aligning with the needs of “self-sustainment” and “interoperability” as laid out by FirstNet. FirstNet should be focusing on that vision and scripting it into a template that the States can use to execute its governance structure.  We were going down this road when FirstNet was created, i.e. Craig Farrell’s overall vision presentation, but the FirstNet Board was ill prepared for the storm of constructive criticism on the initial approach. You should note that what they were experiencing was the constructive political process at the federal level, unfortunately the Board gave up to easily and was forced back onto its heels with accusations. In the federal government such behavior is common, and should be expected as part of the process, unfortunately nobody in the NTIA, nor the Department of Commerce, put the right person, or people, on the board that is comfortable with that process. Instead what we got were some eager private commercial giants who were inept to the political process, which unfortunately, caused discourse in the entire market, that discourse is being perceived as inability to execute on the part of the current FirstNet Board and now it is confounded with the political playhouse.

We can armchair quarterback on these issues all day long, but in the end, the solution is quite simple, FirstNet just needs to illustrate its vision and structure in organic templates of business formations that align with the overall goal of building a network based on a centralized approach to required standards. Let the States use those templates to execute their own Public Private Partnership in delivering what it needs for Public Safety Broadband. FirstNet just needs to pick that organic approach, the Myers Model™, and set the approved vendor list.  Why confuse the progress with the non-associated political process of the Federal Government?

But, as with any federal mandated objective, there are those within the administration that are hell-bent on the nationalistic approach to FirstNet. We see an unfunded mandate of $7 Billion[1] to pursue the “same old business” by centralizing a federal organization to design – and physically build – FirstNet, thus, the reason we see the incentive auctions to sell “other” spectrum bands to fulfill the commitment of funding FirstNet. Essentially, the feds see this as a money problem, and thus are all about digging into taxpayer investments, i.e. spectrum, and shouting to the masses about taxpayer avoidance, when in reality they know that their whole solution is based on a centralized federal solution which means taxpayer funding is unavoidable — if they lead the charge. We don’t need to attack this problem by throwing money at it, we attack it with a industry concept and an alignment with the business objectives of its customers and investors. 

“I am not alone in seeing this as a problem. The Public Safety Alliance—whose members include APCO International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Sheriffs’ Association, among others—highlighted the incentive auction as the “best and perhaps only chance” to fund FirstNet. The Alliance called on the FCC to make sure the auction “realizes the full value of the repurposed broadcast spectrum.” (Ajit Pai, Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission)[2]

It’s a good thing we don’t have Doctors, like myself, trying to perform as a counselor; then again the same can be said for Attorneys trying to build a telecommunication network – touché! But, because we have federal funding associated with this, we are getting way more support than we anticipated, thus, FirstNet’s issues with politics and ineffectiveness. By focusing at the State level we can eliminate a lot of the political strife and focus on the build. As I have proclaimed in the past, it’s just an LTE network build. If we KISS (keep it simple stupid) then we can deliver what the State needs, while at the same time, giving FirstNet what it is really trying to achieve… a national network for Public Safety.


But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog….

[1] President’s Budget: $7B for FirstNet, Full Funding For CPB, Spectrum Fees Return. Also Funds New NTIA Internet Policy Center to Coordinate Policy among Broadband Stakeholders. By: John Eggerton Mar 04 2014 – 01:13pm

[2] Remarks of fcc commissioner ajit pai
at the emerging technology forum of apco international “public safety communications in the digital age. February 27, 2014


FirstNet and LA-RICS — is that the Titanic parked in Long Beach? Or are you just happy to see me?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
As I spoke about in the past (“FirstNet: This is how LA-RICS will fail…” dated September 30th of 2013) and (“LA-RICS Next Obama Mistake?” dated February 2012), the issue with LA-RICS (Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications Systems) is not the technical, or tactical, approach to building the 231 sites for Public Safety; rather it’s the financial model and its ability to generate revenue. I am referring to a recent article in Urgent Communications by Donny Jackson entitled, “LA-RICS board delays consideration of Motorola Solutions LTE contract”.
The LA-RICS deployment is the cornerstone (forcibly) of the State’s plan to build the statewide Public Safety Broadband Network. On one side you have leadership within the State’s legislative body that wants to support President Obama in anyway they can, but they realize that without help stabilizing their own economy and fixing their indebtedness, the support for FirstNet will be fleeting. The context for California was pretty much the epitome of “opt in”. What became a problem was the lack of a clear and concise message from FirstNet on a business model, a business model that could foster the States needs. Then came along “this guy with a blog” who opened up the opportunity of doing a Public Private Partnership – the Myers Model™ — a P3 that made sense. His idea, sorry my idea, sparked interest by illustrating its control for Public Safety, opened doors for private investment, created jobs, and ultimately turned a solution into an income source for the state… without having the taxpayers pay for it.  Then comes the question, if the State wanted to support the administration in its plan for the NPSBN, then why do we have a rogue deployment that is the epitome of “opt out” – LA-RICS?
Well we can’t blame the LA-RICS staff, or the board oversight, because the LA-RICS thing has been in the works for the last 5-years, to say the least. Over time it grew to a point of “we just have to get it done at all costs”. As you can imagine, this probably goes against the wishes of the State, especially if they have a business model that could help the state tremendously. Why spend $200 Million when you can get it for free through private investment? How does the State still demonstrate support for the President in his efforts?
In the end the real reason the LA-RICS is stalling is that the Motorola model, that was presented to the board, does not illustrate the ability to “self-sustain” and does not adequately reflect its funding roots. Case in point would be BayRICS, but this article is not about BayRICS. In context how do you justify a build-out on the back of taxpayers when there is a way to do it for free….and take in revenue….and not hit the taxpayers?
Anyone can do the math of this and can come to consensus that maybe LA-RICS just needs to slow down and drink some fruit juice or something… or, whatever they drink in LA these days. Have they legalized pot yet? The model is right in front of the board, what is clouding their judgment is that they are fixated on bonding, grants, taxpayer impacts and ultimately the message to the constituents. Plus, it doesn’t help that they believe they have all the answers (or the vendor has all the answers), when in fact, they don’t. Anybody can be inches away from the hull of the Titanic to see the damage; it’s the higher viewpoint that really illustrates what the message is.  
[“We had taken the proposed contract to the board [last Thursday], and they delayed action on it until March 6 to do some further analysis of the funding plan,” LA-RICS executive director Patrick Mallon said during an interview with IWCE’s Urgent Communications.] (Donny Jackson Urgent Communications)
Another key area of interpretation is the fact they barely squeaked by with a questionable bidding process to build-at-all-costs just to meet a timeline of federal funding. How would a vendor be able to produce a business model that does not take into consideration the impacts on its revenue operation? A vendor must feed the corporate dragon, else they get consumed. Anybody remember the term “vendor financing”? Anybody remember the collapse of the telecom market back in 1999?
The fact of the matter is that the Myers Model™ (Public Private Partnership) demonstrates the advantages of private investment without the stereotypes, or a bias towards one vendor. In fact, the Myers Model™ actually equalizes the business models by aligning their needs through stability, anyone who partakes can reap their own intrinsic success – to include the vendors. In the end everyone on the board, and in the State leadership, just needs to understand, we are not dealing with a technical, or timeline issue, we are dealing with a financial issue. Then again this could all go south if the board does not concede its defeat and instead reconvenes to move the deal with Motorola to the next level, of which then they will be inundated with stress and anxiety. I have a solution for that as well, it’s called Zoloft.  
Just to demonstrate that it’s not all doom and gloom, the beauty of the P3 is that it can be implemented at anytime, the only thing the State needs to ask itself is; do we want to waste money up front, or just let private equity step in to take control and foster a better model for LA County and thus the state?  Either way, the network has to be built, we have Public Safety issues regarding Police, Fire, EMS, INS, DoD, Highways, Utilities and High-Speed Rail systems that all need a safe and reliable network, but then again I’m…
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet, Public Safety’s worst enemy…. do we call Jenny Craig or Richard Simmons? Depends on how you look at it!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
The art of building a large federal bureaucracy is taking a toll on FirstNet. The overarching desire to centralize the Public Safety Broadband Network under one federal organization is starting to follow the same path as any other federal agency…. large, cumbersome and flustered with red-tape — ultimately its own worst enemy. Such bureaucratic behavior can easily be interpreted as “non-interoperable” in the eyes of the States. And here we thought that interoperability was a technical issue. Who would have thought that the same organization yelling to the masses about Interoperability is in itself actually the source of “interoperability”?
The best point to make out of this whole FirstNet thing is by highlighting the fact that if you want to get this network built, you have to encourage the States to move forward on their own — under a high-level framework established by FirstNet. Had FirstNet adopted this philosophy from the beginning they could have completed a framework of execution within their first 6-months. But, politics is always present when money, taxpayer money, is involved. FirstNet doesn’t need to measure the distance between threads on the first screw when building the FirstNet structure; they just need to focus on what it looks like from afar and what the approved parts should be.
Ultimately, what we are faced with is the fact that FirstNet needs to come to its own self-realization that it is a governing body… not a contractor. I think that Bill D’Agastino (GM) gets this, but is inundated with the realization of the never-ending battle of bureaucracy… in short he can’t win unless he relinquishes more control to the States, but, he needs to do it in a manner that sets the tone for his ability to govern its implementation as discernable by those politicians that are controlling the bureaucratic process. In essence, FirstNet needs to get out of its own way here and let Bill work with the States, so the States can build their own solutions. Here is a question: what happens if the States go with the Myers Model™ and they don’t need any federal or state taxpayer money to design, build, operate or self-sustain? If we aren’t asking for a budget from the legislators do we actually need any involvement with the government? What happens if we have one state making lots of revenue off their own established Myers Model™ implementation, yet another state is not because it chose the FirstNet “all encompassing” bureaucratic model? Who will pick up the bill in getting state efforts back in shape? Jenny Craig or Richard Simmons?
A few states are in fact starting to take the lead. FirstNet needs to encourage this mindset and let it grow to their advantage. By advantage, I mean FirstNet needs to partner with the State and share in its opportunities garnered through the use of the public private partnership model. As I have stated in the past it would be to FirstNet’s advantage to join in on the solution rather than fester the problem. In the end, FirstNet would save a lot of time, and money, if it were to focus on the State’s efforts to create their own P3 — they will make a lot more money this way than trying to tap the taxpayers every time they need money. The avoidance of the political confusion, as well as the models ability to build economic incentives into the States, only benefits us all, but most specifically those States that are having economic problems.
The way I interpret it, FirstNet is trying to enter the luxury car market by building a Yugo knock-off without really reflecting inward by asking if this is the correct course of action, not just for themselves, but for the benefit of the States and all Americans. Why not just invest in the work of others — others who have the knowledge of local execution and local governance; someone who can deliver what really needs to be delivered at the State level and has more of a direct ear to its resident Americans?
But then again I’m…
Just some guy and a blog!