Author: drmikemyers

Way to go Harris County Texas!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Really good ideas being tested in Harris County. Most were under the belief that Harris County in Texas was testing LTE. I in fact was one of those people. They are not really testing LTE but rather applications. This is really a great idea! This idea needs to be developed to include all the users of the PSBN. Test Utilities, Transportation, Agriculture and Forestry to include DoD and DHS type solutions. Of all the testing being done so far this is probably the most important. Even more important than what is going on with the PSCR. Allow me to explain.

The technology of LTE is not new anymore, but what is missing is the potential for M2M and B2B type applications that make up a great deal of the ecosystem of applications that will connect and integrate — at the applications layer — all the First Responders and Public Safety Services Organizations. What I’m afraid of is the lack of money. We need to invest a great deal into what they are doing in Harris County. If there is anything that BTOP should be used for is just such development and testing.

They also really need to brand this and market it to the community. This essentially is the real test bed for a true physical App Store and development framework. We can’t hide the gem that it is.

Just some guy and a blog….

What if FirstNet wants to do a deal with the carriers more than the carriers want to do a deal with them?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Things change — what if Verizon doesn’t give a crap about FirstNet? What if FirstNet has high hopes of working with the carriers, but the carriers don’t have any interest in working with them? In actuality it wouldn’t be the first time – I mean look at the Universal Service Fund and how well that is being rolled out. What if a commercial carrier signs up to partner with FirstNet by expanded infrastructure only to have the Federal and State taxpaying mechanism fall short of its planned objectives? Who will be left holding the bag? My bet the carriers.
If I were a carrier and I had $30 Billion invested in the stacked technologies of 2G, 3G and now 4G consolidated into huge infrastructure costs…why would I want to just add more infrastructure on top of what I already have? Especially when I’m actually trying to reduce the overhead of my infrastructure so that I can reap the benefits on selling the more lucrative content and services that deliver a better ROI than the ever decreasing ARPU (Average Rates Per User).
If this is indeed the case then why would FirstNet continue down the path of believing that a commercial carrier relationship is what they need to deliver the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network? The first thing that comes to mind are ideas of grandeur, or maybe just the lack of experience. Or maybe their plan is starting to fall apart…what then? The reality is that if you don’t funnel your idea based off a viable business model you will be taking everyone down a path of confusion that will ultimately lead to a lack of confidence in your actions. Is that what’s happening now? I mean we’ve been hearing the same message now for the last 9-months. To me it’s a matter of fact that the industry is losing faith and the reality is setting in. Everyone is starting to realize that if anything is going to get done with FirstNet — it will have to happen at the State level. Frankly would we think anything different? Can anyone name a Federal program that actually works?
What will happen with the spectrum? Without spectrum the State’s can’t build anything. What concerns me is a recent statement by one of the FirstNet members who stated “what’s in it for FirstNet? What should FirstNet expect for its share of revenue?” Who is the spectrum allocated for again? Such statements throws me for a loop, because I thought the network was for first response. Or is this a characteristic of a commercial executive trying to build a Public Safety network? In reality FirstNet stands a better chance of collecting more revenue by partnering with the State’s than trying to do it alone. But it’s starting to look like FirstNet is trying to utilize $7 Billion in grants and spectrum sales just for the sake of spending…what really scares me is that they might not even know it. If they were to just allocate the spectrum to the States and then take a share of each State’s P3 model – the model I promote – to which they could reap the benefit of much more revenue than they would have ever experienced otherwise. Plus the taxpayers could get their money back – our money back.
Time for FirstNet to gravitate to my model that let the State’s lead the effort of monetizing the spectrum for the own use….a shared effort of FirstNet and the State.
Just some guy and a blog… 

FirstNet: Motorola sides with the commercial carriers over their Public Safety clients?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

I understand the need to get on board first when a new potential lucrative market presents itself. But what I don’t get is going against your primary client base that has managed to get you to where you are today. I am referring to Motorola’s early move to strike an agreement with Verizon back in February 2011.
Essentially Motorola vowed to work with Verizon to build out the Public Safety Network using the Verizon network. Now this doesn’t seem like much, but consider who Motorola’s main clients are and consider the recent actions of the FirstNet Board. I am talking about the actions of 4 of the FirstNet Board members to create a commercial business plan with Verizon that would allow Verizon to build and control the Nations First Responder Broadband Network. If that is true then Verizon, who bid on the original D-Block spectrum auctions a few years back, would now be able to get control of the same spectrum for free. This may be against the will of the States who want to control their own spectrum and may not want the carriers to control anything within their borders. But I have blogged about that already.
What I find really interesting is Motorola’s move to side with Verizon over its primary client base of Public Safety. After all it was Chief Fitzgerald that stood up and put the FirstNet Board front and center on accusations that the four members of the FirstNet Board, that all happened to work for Vodafone at the same time (Vodafone owns 45% of Verizon) and the inclusion of a new GM who happens to come from Verizon, may bleed a hint of truth to the devious takeover plan.
Chief Fitzgerald represents the main connection to the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), which was put in place to represent the Public Safety Community in whole and of which this network is being built. Why would Motorola side with a commercial carrier over its primary source of revenue since its inception? I mean Motorola has about 98% of the Public Safety Radio market. A market that will not go away no matter what wireless technology presents itself. In actuality it will most likely grow with new and advanced handsets and radios. It may be just a little bit of bad judgment. In reality though all this decision does is isolate Motorola from the inevitable that the States have to control, monetize and build out their own spectrum solutions for broadband in support of Public Safety.
If you are a State, or the State’s representative to construct the entire statewide build out of Public Safety broadband, would you be able to trust a vendor who decided to side with the same commercial carrier who was plotting to take over the spectrum for Public Safety? What comes to mind is the “New Coke” market moves back in the 70’s…I bet Harris is just jumping for joy right now. With such a move by Motorola I’m sure it will insure a boost in Harris’ revenue goals with new clients. In reality though can you really trust an organization that sided with a commercial carrier who is seeking revenue over the social necessity to build a Pubic Safety Network? We must remember why we are building this network in the first place – 9-11 and the loss of 3000 lives to terrorism of which included hundreds of First Responders who lacked the ability to communicate.
Essentially Motorola needs to ask itself: what happens if the States Opt Out and decide to build their own solution? Usually when you make a decision you try and better your current position with forward momentum. I’m not sure this was such a move, thus brings to question what is Motorola thinking? Then again it could be a sign of desperation as well. Maybe the numbers are not as good as predicted? Or maybe they just want to get out of the Public Safety space? I don’t know, but if it were me I would have just stayed on the side and backed my client’s moves. 

Just some guy and a blog….

How do you hide a 400-page FirstNet business plan with no one finding out? Any suggestions?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Just read an interesting article about the stated fact that “No Business Plan Exist” for FirstNet and that a 400-page paper document was never created under the leadership of Craig Farril, Sam Ginn, William Keaver or Ed Reynolds. It’s freighting to garner the idea that no one would suspect a large contracting and consulting firm would put together a 400-page business plan without anyone suspecting… let alone the other board members. Could you imagine sitting by the printer waiting for a 400-page printout? Somehow that just doesn’t ring true. I mean how do you get something like a 400-page paper, written secretly by consultants, by the Federal Government’s watchful eye and all its red tape? Can such a capper be committed? Imagine the impact on the Nation, our National Security, the Interest of the States and eventually that deep impact on taxpaying Americans. I mean its asinine to think something like that could happen…. right? Let alone get away with it? If that were to happen in a corporation you would be fired, blacklisted and probably arrested for mutiny. Can you mutan-ize a company? Is “mutin-ize” a word?
Maybe it’s not a “business plan”? Maybe it’s a strategy document that lays out just how a certain commercial carrier will obtain the spectrum allocated to Public Safety whose dubious plan it will be to augment their sell-off of their own burdensome assets to increase their profits while at the same time burdening the Federal and State taxpayers with holding the bag when they decide to exit?  Or maybe it’s an evil plan to undercut their existing competition by acquiring spectrum that they would normally have to bid for? How nice would that be to acquire the same spectrum you tried to bid on a few years back, but this time you can get it for free and let the taxpayers pay for it. Or, better yet, maybe it’s a 400-page recipe for a new broadband Hungarian Goulash soup?
Why would we assume that just because we have 4 industry guys on the board, that have a tremendous amount of skill and experience in monetizing the use of commercial wireless, that they would have any other intentions other than creating a Private LTE network — with limited users on the most valuable spectrum in the world — just for Public Safety? Reminds me of a joke about a scorpion getting a ride on the back of a turtle…
If indeed such behavior would have ever been committed, or exists at the FirstNet Board, then I’m sure that our faithful legislatures, and appointees, will have someone probably going to jail for misappropriations of taxpayer money. How else would you pay a huge amount of money to a consultant, without anyone knowing about it, instructing them to write a 400-page plan without following the law signed by the President of the United States?  Unless of course these consultants just took it upon themselves. Come on everyone…nobody is that incomprehensible.
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet Board has some life? Would a 40-year veteran of Public Safety service lie about not getting information from his own board members?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Is there life within the FirstNet Board conducting secret meetings and not involving sitting board members? Is there truth to a recent motion that will impact the development of the Nations First Responder Public Safety Broadband Network — emphasis on “Public Safety Network”?

What a nice and heated debate today. Finally it looks as if there is some life on the FirstNet Board. I’m specifically addressing Chief Fitzgerald’s motion to the board and a breaking point to the finality of 9-months of frustration on the behalf of the PSAC. 

There may be something to Chief Fitzgerald’s motion. I believe what the Chief is trying to convey is that the typical process of transparency that you would expect to see at any local school board illustrates how ineffective the FirstNet process truly is. Why is this so hard to understand? This open and transparent process is nothing new. It’s as if the Board has taken upon themselves that they themselves must physically build the network and are charging ahead to make that happen. That’s impossible given their short terms on the board. Unless of course the Chief is right and there are alternative agendas at play? I mean we are talking about the most valuable piece of spectrum property that the United States has to offer. It is most undoubtedly very attractive to the carrier commercial market space, so why wouldn’t they do whatever they could to obtain the rights to that spectrum?  
Has anyone in the public seen this “Business Plan” that has supposedly been developed? We heard about it a few months ago but no one outside of the board has seen or heard anything…..as well as Chief Fitzgerald it seems. 
Why are we speaking about “App Stores” when we don’t even know how the entire network will be paid for and who will fund the network?
Why do the Apps being spoken about directly connect the commercial wireless to the private protected network of the PSBN? Shouldn’t we have a network first?
What happened to cyber-security concerns?
Why would a sitting board member go on a national forum to state he is not getting the access and the information needed to participate? Do we assume that a 40 year veteran of Public Safety, and the pinnacle of the Police hierarchy, would lie to us….at an open forum to the nation?
Is there a hint of truth here?
It’s not so much the specific tools, apps and designs that are being presented, as it is the process of how they are being created. The whole process of a “Board” conducting preliminary designs, application development and fostering carrier relationships is inappropriate. I would envision that the new General Manager (who comes from Verizon and which opens even more doors of bias) would be the one actually performing these tasks…not the “Board”. I believe this is the basis for Chief Fitzgerald’s motion. It’s as if we are hearing about the need for such a great and all-encompassing network and how they will work with the States, tribes and territories, yet all we see from the webcasted board meetings are solutions without any input from anyone outside of the immediate board. How do we get to solutions when we don’t know how it will be funded and coordinated with State input? The accusation from a sitting board member who states that he isn’t even part of the discussions surrounding the design; the business model ; the carrier relations; nor the acts of execution, concerns me greatly. It should concern all of us. 
This is NOT a commercial company. I’m afraid that the current FirstNet Board is taking us down a path of “carrier commercialization” that will drastically harm our ability to perform First Response. The Chief is right in that the network belongs to our First Responder capability. Maybe he is right in that we should have never called upon executives, that are accustomed to building carrier commercial networks, to build our nations Public Safety Broadband Network. The carrier model for development is not the solution for FirstNet. Just because the carriers are in the business of providing commercial voice and data services to the general public, does not mean they are the ones who know how to build a large private public safety solution.
To clarify, there is one thing that I do not agree with Chief Fitzgerald and that is the statement that it is Public Safety’s network….when in fact it is the peoples network being utilized by Public Safety. I do not feel comfortable with a carrier designing, developing, implementing and operating a network that is there to protect me and my family if something drastic were to happen. The stigmatism of a commercial carrier will always be held to their standard of revenue based support operations. I, we, cannot move beyond the stereotype that the intentions of the carrier provided network will not be compromised by a commercial carrier thought process. Outside of the accusations of not being incorporated into the daily dealings of the FirstNet I believe Chief Fitzgerald highlights the important fact that our network design, and its implementation, may be compromised by carrier intentions that do not match those intentions of the Public Safety. 
Our first objective with building this all-encompassing broadband network should start with a business plan that specifically addresses the funding and investment scenarios and overall all management before we start engaging such things as design and app development. The development of this business plan should be open and transparent to the public. This is the mission of the board.
It’s like I just told my kid we are going to go to Disney World so he starts walking without knowing how we plan to pay for it or how we plan to get there. Do we take a train, plane, car or boat? When do we go? What will we do when we get there? Who will go with us? Our funding will dictate that.
Just some guy and a blog….

What is the role of GSA in FirstNet? The Public Safety Broadband Network is nothing more than just a private LTE network.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

From my interpretation and experience the GSA, or General Services Organization, is the agency within the federal government that takes care of most advanced IT and telecom necessities that are required by any of the federal agencies. But in this case I’m more interested in the telecom and cyber security portions.  How does GSA play in FirstNet? How will it interface with the deployment and the long-term maintenance? How will it interface with a State initiative under a Public Private Partnership?
The Public Safety Broadband Network is physically nothing more than a private 4G broadband network. It will be technically the same, as a commercially available broadband service, yet should remain physically separate for cyber-security concerns. The big difference is that it will be private, truly hardened and specifically used to support our First Responders during catastrophic events, but will remain isolated and inclusive of all the necessary secondary responders in direct support of the First Responders. Maybe not the only way, but undoubtedly the best way, to fully design, deploy and maintain this network will be through the use of State born Public Private Partnership and funded by private equity team, through a competitive process, and controlled by FirstNet Governance that maintains continuity and interoperability throughout all 56 states and territories.
How will the GSA perform its duties under such a framework of a FirstNet sponsored — yet executed under a state born Public Private Partnership? The answer lies within the broadband requirements for the federal agencies using FirstNet as its broadband services company. A state sponsored, yet FirstNet supported, Public Private Partnership (P3) is nothing more than the establishment of a private broadband company that works at the state level, but gets its primary requirements from FirstNet.
Essentially the federal agencies that need broadband service under FirstNet will be viewed as clients on the network…. paying clients as is the case for most internal state agencies and entities…. to the state P3 broadband company. What those federal agencies will need is a representative who can help control the interface of requirements across boarders — as well as inter-agency requirements. This is a game best played by a centralized organization like the GSA. With a standardized approach established by FirstNet, each state can initiate a similar inter-state interoperability solution that would allow for both technically physical roaming capabilities, as well as financial governance controls through interoperable service agreements between the states. With standing long-term service level agreements this makes life a whole lot easier for all the clients on the network.
Being that the States will have to build their own portion of the FirstNet network, within their own geographic and local requirements, it will be necessary to maintain continuity within federal multi-state or holistic geographic service needs. It should be noted that federal agencies like DHS, DOD, FBI, etc.., will all require unique necessities to accomplish their daily mission, but organically all these agencies, to include internal state agencies and entities, will all require the same basic elements: coverage, bandwidth and hardening. When collecting the requirements for the potential users within the State, or even the FirstNet national footprint, these 3 basic elements need to be addressed as to meet physical requirements of the broadband network. It doesn’t need to be made into something more complex that it actually is.
A fourth question that has to be answered in the recurring monthly payment (or annual) to the State based service infrastructure, which may cover multiple States, or geographic regions. But meeting such needs is drastically less complex than trying to augment a pay-per-use scenario, which would require a full billing and support solution at the state level, of which will drastically increase design costs for the entire capital solution. But then again it will be up to the private equity investors who will be awarded the State RFP as to whether or not they wish to invest in such infrastructure. With the priority 3 traffic patterns being off-loaded to commercial carriers, it may not be necessary. All private equity would have to account for is long term SLA agreements with fixed priority 1 and priority 2 clients who pay to access the State PSBN (Public Safety Broadband Network) infrastructure of services; insure that the technical specifications for broadband services are met (to include hardening); and insure that inter-state roaming functionality is in place.
These long-term SLA contracts between the State P3 and the federal agencies can be negotiated and maintained by the GSA, just as it does today. Or each federal agency can negotiate and control their own SLA agreements with each of the State’s P3 entities. Given the number of states, territories and the overall geographic landmass; it may be wise to just utilize a centralized approach through the GSA. This will be drastically simpler to accomplish than trying to use a “pay-per-use” model that is typical with the commercial carriers to which would have to be duplicated across a number of physical state and territorial boundaries.
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet to use "Operating Partners" to help manage and build the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network — guess what? It’s not the carriers!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

I read a recent article published by the Fierce Broadband. What caught my eye was the topic of FirstNet using “operating partners” to help build the National Public Safety Broadband Network.
“The authority will work with ‘operating partners’ to lower construction and operating costs, yielding a lower cost of ownership to public safety, she added.” (Sue Swenson FirstNet Board via Fierce Broadband Wireless)
The term “operating partners” can mean many things…like creating a private “operating company” from within a Public Private Partnership (P3) that is solely created to operate a State’s portion of the National Public Safety Broadband Network. The beauty of this arrangement is that there is no competing interest of this newly created “operating company”. It’s there only to run the Public Safety Broadband Network for the State in conjunction with FirstNet’s overall national network approach. There is no better way to maximize your investment and align your objectives than through just such an arrangement. A commercial operating partner will always have its mind set on selling broadband commercial services — Public Safety Broadband will always be a subset of that business model.  A Public Private Partnership agreement builds a private “operating partner” that focuses only on the needs of Public Safety and nothing else…. unless FirstNet and the State what it to expand its service footprint.
Another keen attribute to such a partnership is the flexibility of the “operating partner” to manage the capital program of the build as well as it’s long-term maintenance and operation. With only the State and Federal agencies and entities, as paying (investing) Priority-1 and 2 clients to this infrastructure, it allows for the creation of long-term service level agreements that can augment infrastructure assets already deployed and invested in. We can maximize those entities needs, requirements and cost-savings through inter-agency coordination and integration of working managed virtual networks as well as asset inventory coordination. In short, the P3 private operating entity can maintain better relationships with all internal and external entities of the State better than any commercial provider will ever be allowed to. That means full implementation of classified and secure cyber security measures through a private managed service entity as well as the full maintenance and deployment capability of the physical broadband network essentially locking-down the network, yet at the same time it is allowed to manage the inter-carrier relationship for Priority-3 rural commercial broadband service between the commercial carriers and rural Americans. This provides for an easy “kill switch” in the case of a cyber-security breach or a network destruction scenario during a catastrophic event.
Note: such an arrangement also helps fill in the voids of the Nation Service Funds for broadband to all of America. But that’s another topic.
There is a lot that can be gained from running a private broadband network, but mostly it is the security and the protection factor that is most important, especially during a time of great public safety necessity. What better “operating partner” could you have?
Just some guy and a blog…..

By not inviting private equity into the Public Safety Broadband initiative FirstNet is harming National Security

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

A topic of concern that touches everyone is the delay in building the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network. Without the proper business model any best-laid plans will be wasted. Every carrier broadband network in the world was funded through Private Equity, why should FirstNet be any different? Why do we need Private Equity to fund FirstNet? It’s all about the money and the balance of needs.
Through the oversight of FirstNet, and executed at the State level, we need to project the potential of recurring revenue so that Private Equity will invest. How do we do this? Through a Public Private Partnership targeting Private Equity.
Why can’t commercial carriers be the main partners for FirstNet? Because the real need is in the financing… not the technology or its requirement for interoperability. Everyone knows that interoperability is important, but the carriers aren’t willing to address the responsibility of who will ultimately pay for it. In their mind it’s a government network thus the taxpayers should pay for it.  If the carriers want to take on all the risk and act as the “Private Equity” partner, then by all means step up to the plate and present an offer to pay for the deployment and its long-term management. Otherwise they need to stand-down and let the advancement of the solution proceed for our Nations Security.  I’m confident that the carriers have some very smart business players and thus won’t step up as the primary financial backer because they themselves know that Private Equity funds their own initiatives. Plus we can’t discount that maybe they have an alternative agenda….like trying to acquire and monetize the spectrum rights for their own needs? If I had Billions of installed broadband assets, and relied upon my subscribers for revenue, that is the only reason to let anyone physically close to my bottom-line, otherwise it’s just about protecting my turf and forming barriers to entry.
Motorola, an OEM, is the prime partner for BayWeb and BayRICS are they the private equity partner? They are indeed sitting in a portion of that role, but the context of how to build recurring revenue to pay for the investment is defunct as is its strategy to fund the build and long-term management. First-off their investment isn’t enough to fund the entire capital program as well as the long-term management of the network. The deal relies on the State to fund the majority of the network. Second, the subscriber based business model will not bring in enough money to repay the investment. Thirdly, they will always be classified as a vendor not an integrator (at least not in the same context as an actual integrator — their overheads are too high), but it’s Motorola and the State of California’s money, so as long as FirstNet and federal taxpayers aren’t part of the plan it should stay under the radar. Nothing better than two or three guys putting together just enough money to get a loan on a Ferrari and then trying to pay-off the loan by begging for money outside of a train station.
In the end though, and on its current path, having an OEM lead your private investment for deploying Public Safety Broadband will be plagued with complications. It’s just a matter of time before it will be thrown into court as “anti-competitive”. The same thing happened on the LA-RICS contract, but in this case it was Raytheon (Integrator) who was the target and Motorola (vendor) was the complainer. What if Alcatel or NSN want a fair shake at the Government supported contract? What about Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics or Bechtel? What about Walmart? How will the legislature defend against favoritism? How do you defend against the image of an OEM buying their way into a program? Private Equity teaming of course.
Now don’t get me wrong I have nothing against Motorola. Motorola is a great company that produces some of the best products in the world and is basically the foundation of our Public Safety networks today. Where would we be without them? My only thing is that the business model for BayWeb and BayRICS could be played with a model that all parties get equal and lucrative footholds. The State could get a network totally bought and paid-for without using taxpayer money; Motorola could save the millions they used and revert to a solid margin play of services and products; the users of the network get a solid broadband service; and private investors get a share in the recurring revenue fueling future growth in the State…. its all in how we play the game.
By FirstNet not adopting the Public Private Partnership model that focuses on Private Equity investors — they are in fact delaying the inevitable and thus our Nations Security.  There is a lot more at stake than just First Responders. By incorporating the priority 2 users, i.e. Utilities, Transportation, etc., we are in fact protecting vital infrastructure assets of the Nation as well as its citizens. Not to mention the vital assets of cyber security to control and secure the networks that will ride on this inevitable, and pervasive, broadband network. 
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet should allow each State to individually monetize the spectrum allocated for Public Safety – its the only way to fully fund the national solution of Public Safety Broadband!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

We can’t afford not to monetize the Public Safety spectrum for Public Safety. The state of the economy dictates that each State, and the Nation, needs to be creative in finding ways to cut cost and construct more sustainable revenue. What better way than to benefit from the valuable broadband spectrum allocated to FirstNet?
Through the use of a State advertised RFP (Request For Proposal) process we can allow private equity to invest into our nations public safety infrastructure insuring ourselves a path to success (reference my NOI response to FirstNet). Any other way will detract from the overall purpose of progress.  There are those that think by monetizing the spectrum allocated to each State that we are somehow detracting from the overall goal of Public Safety. I believe the exact opposite to be true.
By focusing on the three main priority levels, as indicated by FirstNet in its initial conceptual network design, we can easily configure a user base of a State PSBN solution that will produce significant amounts of recurring revenue and cost savings that can allow for a stable and self-sufficient broadband entity operated within the State, which ultimately would be re-invested using the State’s ownership portion of that revenue. 
1.     Priority 1 users are First Responders (Police, Fire and EMS types);
2.     Priority 2 users are Utilities, Transportation, Agriculture and the likes;
3.     Priority 3 users are the rural constituents of the State who require broadband service.
As I have indicated in the past (see past RFP process diagram) the importance remains in the State’s ability to illustrate a good technical specification requirement, forecasted governance model requirements (interfacing requirements) and projected financial recurring revenue picture within their RFP. Each State can MORE effectively acquire (more than the Federal Government) the specifications and the projected revenue from each of its internal State agencies and entities then combine then into the said RFP. If needed the State can also project the recurring revenue from rural broadband service as well.
In the end we have already proofed such a business case analysis, and its projected revenue stream, with one State (reference Tri-County Electric Oklahoma). We successfully illustrated a strong recurring revenue stream and strict compliance with design specifications as indicated by FirstNet. It is a holistic network design that full interoperates yet remains protected through its private implementation. The solution is entirely doable. We can’t afford not to try this approach. It’s in the best interest of the nation and our nations security.
Just some guy and a blog….