Author: drmikemyers

FirstNet — Interoperable Compliance Matrix — its a one-off way of addressing Opt-Out States.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
We are finally seeing FirstNet make an effort to address Opt-Out States — but through the NTIA and FCC. I have this vision of a brat whining to the school teacher because others won’t play with him on the playground. 
“FirstNet will deliver the interoperability compliance matrix to the FCC, NTIA, and the States and Territories as expeditiously as possible, but no later than the time of delivery of State and Territory Plans.” 
Although, this matrix will most likely only outline technical features (addressed only to the FCC/NTIA), for the benefit of doubt lets say FirstNet is making an effort to address Opt-Out States. Addressing the technical aspects of the network will not be that complex to administer — no matter how complicated FirstNet makes it seem — that’s because we only have 3-4 real providers of the technology, all of which already interface with each other. The real issue will be how FirstNet lays out its operational controls and governance.
It doesn’t matter what FirstNet believes on how the network should operate, because being a State based Opt-Out solution, the State will be in charge of its own operational plan and governance control. FirstNet trying to impose a fixed structure of operational control over State based assets will not fly. Let alone the Tenth Amendment, the real issues will be driven by revenue controls and provisioning of new groups. The complication comes from the billing engines and the provision of services to the initial handset solutions assigned to specific groups. Technically it can seem to be overwhelming, but the carriers do it every day with 100’s of Millions of users every minute of the day. The real issue will be financial and operational control; who gets to provision new users; who gets to control the revenue flow from the users; who gets to control the user groups geographically, statewide and nationally – these are the real issues — not what interface I have to use to connect two fibers.  It will be interesting to see what FirstNet thinks in regards to how this will be run.
Even though FirstNet is creating this matrix, it really doesn’t mean anything outside of the fact that the NTIA/FCC need something to work with. As I spoke about in an earlier postingabout trust, FirstNet does not hold a lot of trust, primarily due to the fact that creating this matrix is the first real effort FirstNet has made in addressing the States that will Opt-Out. This gesture may be construed as FirstNet just appealing to the demands of the FCC who is, most likely, being inundated with State Representatives peppering them with what the “technical” and “interoperable” standards will be for an Opt-Out State. This is what I mean about building trust. Being forthright with what the FirstNet business plan is, or what FirstNet has been thinking in that regard, is the only real way to build the trust. If there is any hint of people within the FirstNet organization not playing by this open game, and fostering the States own solution, then they should find a new job.  
We’re coming upon a half Billion dollars being spent on FirstNet so far trying to construct a “new carrier operation” from the top down. How much more money needs to be spent before FirstNet understands their position as an oversight of Opt-Out States, thus applying their “technical matrix” through the FCC? Sure, FirstNet needs to act like a business owner for those States that will Opt-In, but, I can assure you that adjusting a business model to address such a solution will, or needs to be, driven from the bottom up and will be drastically smaller of an effort than what FirstNet is spending the money on today.
As with any government driven solution, we have to pay the folly-payment first, then the work really gets started. Along for the ride are those States that are “waiting to hear what FirstNet has before moving forward”. I can professionally state that there are a lot of States talking Opt-Out (and I have met with all of them), especially after the façade of “Opt-In and we pay for it all” has worn off. Reality has settled in – and I think FirstNet has come to realize this as well – States need to start sharing efforts to mobilize around a consistent Public Private Partnership model that can be replicated across borders to insure operational and governance controls that are easily understood and setup between adjoining multiple States. FirstNet is not going to provide you a framework of a Public Private Partnership model if it keeps playing the “top-down” card — Why? Because they won’t let go of preconceived ideas of how the network needs to be built. The answer to the whole PSBN lays within each State. The State is not going to get the answers it needs from a technically driven “interoperability compliance matrix” created for the FCC and NTIA. Remember, FirstNet doesn’t want the Opt-Out State to succeed — they want their plan to succeed — that plan is a government administered plan, not a State driven plan.  
Probably the biggest market economic boost in the last 10 years is being held up and the only people who are suffering are those in life-threatening situations; people that need jobs; the middle class that needs tax breaks; and the State’s ability to drive energy into its local economy.  Why? Because someone believes they may lose out on some “Free” money from the Federal Government, which is asinine. Just taking money from one pocket and moving it into the other. Fostering the Public Safety Broadband Network into existence, through the Public Private Partnership model I’ve been preaching about, will create thousands of jobs locally, provide a solid infrastructure to support communications in-whole, all while prioritizing Public Safety first over everything else….and fortunately…the modified FirstNet mission will rise with the tide.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — State’s that Opt-Out get their portion of $7 Billion.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

“States that successfully meet the criteria to build their own network within FirstNet will be eligible for a proportionate share of the $6.5 billion.5 The total cost to build out the network is estimated by most experts to be in excess of $30 billion over 10 years.”  (Congressional Research Service, June 2016)

FirstNet – What the law States about Opt-Out vs. Opt-In. Opt-in you pay; Opt-out to receive

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I want to make the legal interpretation of the HR3630 (Middle Class tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012) that pertains to the allocation of the D-Block spectrum to Public Safety and the formation of FirstNet.
Here is what the law state:
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
If you decide to Opt-In:
(e) STATE NETWORK
“the First Responder Network Authority shall provide to the Governor of each State, or his designee—
(A) notice of the completion of the request for proposal process;
(B) details of the proposed plan for buildout of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network in such State; and
(C) the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA. “
If the State decides to Opt-Out:
(iii) APPROVAL.—If the Commission approves a plan under this subparagraph, the State—
(I) may apply to the NTIA for a grant to construct the radio access network within the State that includes the showing described in subparagraph (D); and
(II) shall apply to the NTIA to lease spectrum capacity from the First Responder Network Authority.
Who can use the revenue:
Use of Revenue:
(g) PROHIBITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State that chooses to build its own radio access network shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State except directly through public-private partnerships for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State. 
In summary:

·      You Opt-In you pay to build your network and you can’t use the revenue

·      You Opt-Out you get a grant and you can use the revenue

Is this really a decision?

..st some guy and a blog…nue
 t-Out you get a grant and you get to use the revenue.  the allocation of the D-Block spectrum to

Just some guy and a blog….

Rural gets worse

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

“The underserved rural markets are already trailing large urban areas in investment and higher speeds. This order does nothing to further additional investment, much less competition, in those markets. Under the FCC’s proposal, productivity factors and picking winners and losers with questionable data would make rural markets poor candidates for investments that would enable 5G technology,” said Michael T. Skrivan, FairPoint Vice President, Regulatory. “We are concerned the FCC’s rush to regulate would harm the country’s most vulnerable consumers.”

FirstNet – Transparency issues here, the Law says that an "Opt-In" State will pay "its portion" of the FirstNet "Opt-In" solution!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Calculating the State’s portion of the build out of FirstNet and the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network.
Had an interesting conversation with someone and I thought I would write about it. In the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 that allocated the D-Block spectrum to Public Safety and created FirstNet, it is written:
SEC. 6302. STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION.
(e) STATE NETWORK.—
(1) NOTICE.—Upon the completion of the request for proposal process conducted by the First Responder Network Authority for the construction, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the nationwide public safety broadband network, the First Responder Network Authority shall provide to the Governor of each State, or his designee—
(A) notice of the completion of the request for proposal process;
(B) details of the proposed plan for buildout of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network in such State; and
(C) the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA.
                                                           
Essentially the obvious question poised was “how much will the State have to pay?” A lot of States have been told, and the market, that “the State will not have to pay for anything and that FirstNet will come in and build it all”. Now we all know such a bloviated statement like this doesn’t hold salt, plus, as written in the law above, you can clearly see that the State will be responsible for its “portion” – they just don’t know how much yet — which I believe to be a nefarious statement.  We do it all the time in the telecom industry.
We know that commercial carriers cover 42% of the geographic landmass (all the major metropolitan areas). Why? Because those are the areas that generate enough revenue for them to try and sell more. The commercial carriers don’t build out to the rural areas because those areas don’t make money. That means that more than 60% of the rest of the geographic landmass is not covered by the carriers. You should note that these uncovered areas include all the rural areas.
I may be mistaken, but one of the main reasons the D-Block was allocated to Public Safety was so that they could build their own network to cover the areas that the carriers don’t provide service. We all know that they carriers already provide Public Safety service in the major metropolitan areas — that’s not our goal — our goal is to cover all the areas the carriers don’t. So let’s pocket that info for the time being.
We also know that FirstNet was allocated $7 Billion to help construct the PSBN. We also know that $6.5 Billion is what’s remaining out of that $7 Billion. We can also assume that by the time this gets going that the NTIA/FirstNet will have spent another $500 Million, so in essence we will have a remaining budget of less than $6 Billion allocated to help the build. If a State decides to Opt-Out, then it can apply for its own portion of that remaining $6 Billion (see below). 
(I) may apply to the NTIA for a grant to construct the radio access network within the State that includes the showing described in subparagraph (D)
Now lets get back to the meat of the question. 
If a State decides to “Opt-In” then item “C” above takes effect, that is “the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA”. Essentially, what this says is that the “State taxpayers” will have to pay a portion of the networks build-out. The answer we get back from FirstNet is, “we don’t know what that amount is yet, because we don’t have our partner lined up. Once we get our partner lined up we can then do a design that will provide us a cost for each State”. (TJ Kennedy, President FirstNet) Well, this is not entirely true! I can guarantee you that FirstNet is not being fully transparent here. They know in great detail what the capital costs are looking like because they did a rough design a longtime ago. Doing a design is the easy part. Any reputable telecom firm can create a design with calculated costs within a few hours — as a matter of fact any reputable telecom firm will not even go beyond the go-nogo stage without a rough order of magnitude created — those same “reputable firms” have been working with FirstNet since day-1 I can assure you.  
In the telecom/broadband space we make calculated “guesstimates” all the time. You have too, this process helps with the decision framework of product introductions, network enhancements, upgrades and rollouts. In this instance, we know that the carrier cover 40% of the geography (major metro areas) and they are interested in their ROI for service. We also know that FirstNet will make a, supposed, contribution of less than $100 Million start-up costs ($6 Billion divided by 55 States and Territories); that means the State will be responsible for the remaining 60% of the geography of its State, which covers all the rural areas.
On average we are looking at a capital buildout of $1 Billion per State to build PSBN. That means that 40% would be covered by FirstNet’s partner; FirstNet would contribute less than $100 Million; and the State would be responsible for 60%. Easy math now:
Partner pays – $400 Million — and per the law can collect the revenue
FirstNet contributes less than $100 Million — and per the law can collect the revenue
State contributes $600 Million — and CANNOT collect revenue
So there we have it, a ballpark figure of $600 Million in capital will have to come from the State to address the demands in the law — and no way to pay it back — we haven’t even addressed long-term operational costs.
(C)the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA.
Here is another issue, if this holds true, then the State will also be responsible for 60% of the long-term operational costs of the baseline network. Typically, in the telecom space we see operation costs (opex) falling in the range of 10% of the capital program (capex), thus for a Billion-dollar network we are looking at $100 Million in annual operational costs.  This means that the State will be responsible for its portion totaling (most likely less than) $60 Million a year. Remember, the State, per the law for Opt-In, is not allowed to use the revenue, only FirstNet can.
Now let’s look at “Opt-Out”!
In short, if a State exercises its right to “Opt-Out”, then the State will have to pay nothing, not even for the long-term operations, and it will be able to use its portion of the revenue generated off their statewide network. Plus, the State can apply for its portion of the $7 Billion (which by then will be less than $6 Billion) to help construct its network. In essence, you Opt-Out you get a fully funded and self-sustaining broadband network, of which you maintain ownership, and you can benefit from the revenue the network generates. Then apply for your portion of the $6 Billion allocated to the cause. What a deal!
(2) STATE DECISION.—Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Governor of a State receives notice under paragraph (1), the Governor shall choose whether to—
 [Opt-In] (A) participate in the deployment of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network as proposed by the First Responder Network Authority; or
[Opt-Out] (B) conduct its own deployment of a radio access network in such State.
(3) PROCESS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Upon making a decision to opt-out under paragraph (2)(B), the Governor shall notify the First Responder Network Authority, the NTIA, and the Commission of such decision.
(B) STATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which a Governor provides notice under subparagraph (A), the Governor shall develop and complete requests for proposals for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the radio access network within the State.
(C) SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall submit an alternative plan for the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvements of the radio access network within the State to the Commission (The FCC), and such plan shall demonstrate—
(I) that the State will be in compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed under section 6203 (NPSTC and PSCR); and
(II) interoperability with the nationwide public safety broadband network.

(ii) COMMISSION (FCC) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—Upon submission of a State plan under clause (i), the Commission (The FCC)  shall either approve or disapprove the plan.
(iii) APPROVAL.—If the Commission approves a plan under this subparagraph, the State—
(I) may apply to the NTIA for a grant to construct the radio access network within the State that includes the showing described in subparagraph (D); and
(II) shall apply to the NTIA to lease spectrum capacity from the First Responder Network Authority.
Note: I highlighted, in blue, something nobody probably picked-up, the law states a Governor has 180 days from the time the State gives notice of Opt-Out; this means its not 90 days of an opt-out decision period, plus 180 days to RFP the solution; it means you have to commence your 180 days right when you notify them, so if you opt-out on day one you only have 180 days to get everything together. It takes a good 6-12 months to put your Revenue and Market Plans together. Not much tie to spare.  
How does a State pay nothing? With a State commissioned Public Private Partnership (P3) the State will choose its own partners, primarily financial investors (P3 consortium), and offer them the full rights to designing, building, operating and maintaining the State’s Public Safety Broadband Network. In short, the State brings the rights-of-way, assets, and – most importantly – the spectrum. The State sets the requirements of interoperability and technical standard requirements (per the PSCR and the NPSTC). State maintains a shareholder position, and board spot, to insure program goes as planned.
Private investing partners will bring in the cash to fund a start-up broadband company for the State. The P3 consortium will partner with a builder and manufacturer of the technology to build out the network. The State sets the contract terms for a 20 to 30-year obligation with full takeover rights if anything goes wrong. The consortium creates the new broadband entities Board of Directors based on shareholder positions. 
Revenue can be utilized through the P3 arrangement. (See below)
(f) USER FEES.—If a State chooses to build its own radio access network, the State shall pay any user fees associated with State use of elements of the core network. 
(g) PROHIBITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State that chooses to build its own radio access network shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State except directly through public private partnerships for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State. 
But whom am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog…..

FirstNet seeks to control the revenue of the Public Safety Broadband Network forming the catalyst for "Stexit" — take on the Brexit!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Watching FirstNet create a “top-down” federal approach to building the Public Safety Broadband Network, is like watching the EU get created all over again. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea until they finally figure out that the cost to take part is way too expensive.
The issue with a centralized approach to running anything has nothing to do with how great everything sounds for the future, but rather the lack of knowledge on the impacts of increased bureaucracy that establishes an autocratic organization. Every program that stemmed from the same theory has failed, i.e. communism, socialism, and autocracies. All these programs fail because they are inundated with processes, procedures, rules, laws and the lack of creative design. In short, if you over complicate the effort with autocratic efforts you will detract the required creative approach.  
There is a fine line, or glass ceiling, on how far you can implement a centralized approach to delivering the PSBN (anything actually). You have to balance the creativity approach, with balanced processes and procedures that don’t askew the equilibrium. Working from the national level approach to centralizing the build out of the PSBN introduces way more complexities than the centralized authority can handle – let alone generate a clear and concise business plan. The only way to control the balance between the development, demand, and the need, has to start at the bottom, develop upward, and be realistic that the State is the glass ceiling. By sub-compartmentalizing each State solution you can them ramp them up into a national solution of oversight and limited control when needed. In English – we have to build from the bottom up and that starts with the State, then we can rope them all together into a FirstNet national oversight solution.
The reason we won the Cold War was all because of money. In short, we bankrupted Russia into submission. The same thing will happen to FirstNet if they continue down the path of top-down. Eventually, if forced, the States will just not do anything and won’t let anything happen in their State, or they won’t buy the service being offered, thus eventually bankrupting FirstNet. If a State really wants to do what is right, it must build its own solution using a Public Private Partnership that balances those involved and generates revenue prioritized for Public Safety.
The real game here is not about giving Public Safety priority access to communications – although very valiant – the real effort is to insure Public Safety has priority over the revenue generated, so that they can pay for those communication services from now until the end of days. The only way you will be able to insure Public Safety is first in line with the revenue generated is to maintain control – thus FirstNet fighting to maintain control. The real control needs to happen locally and within the State. In the end it’s all about the money – that is always the case. You control the money, you control the network; you control the network you control who gets to take part — much like the EU.
Britain’s departure from the EU is all about the money and who controls it. Losing their sovereignty was the by-product of the effort. Their ability to control their own immigration, their own currency, their own laws were the result of the EU trying to centralize control of the money. Let’s not get lost in the idea of what is really at stake for FirstNet – at its core — it’s all about who controls the money.
But whom am I other than…
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — Why Opt-Out? What are the next steps to Opt-Out? Why?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Time to move past the “Opt-in” versus “Opt-Out” show. As blatant as can be, each State needs to stop trying to define Opt-in and Opt-Out, and all the theatrics being devised, and start putting your “constituents” to work. No one is going to come into your State and build a Public Safety Broadband Network better than you can do for yourself. If you know that the FirstNet plan “to come in and pay for it all” is too good to be true, then you already know what you have to do.
The answer to unemployment lines, the shortfall in budgets, and the success of delivering a solution for your local First Responders lays at your feet…not FirstNet’s. There is no silver bullet coming from the Federal Government to save the day. You are the only ones that can make your PSBN solution a success.  Stop waiting for hand-outs and act on what you know is the right thing to do. What is it that you need to do? You need to start putting your product portfolio, revenue and marketing plans together, so you can define your Public Safety Broadband Network.
These plans will define what your broadband solution will be. Without your products being defined you can’t create your revenue projections; without knowing the revenue projections you can’t attract the needed private investment to secure your “self-funding” and “self-sustainment”. Without a marketing plan you can’t create your design and schedule. If you decide to appease the federal government and declare yourself as “Opt-In”, then these studies become all the more important for your comparison between Opt-Out versus Opt-In. How do you expect your Governor to make a sound decision against the Opt-In scenario if he/she doesn’t even know what the network looks like; what it can do; and how much it can generate in the way of revenue and market penetration? Without those basic criteria your Governor can’t make a sound decision. Just so you know; it will take 6-12 months for you to put your revenue and marketing plan together – the law is only giving you 90 days to Opt-Out, plus another 120 to put your entire plan together if you decide to Opt-Out. Failing to do so will enable FirstNet to push the NTIA to deny your grant and your Opt-Out plan, to which you will relinquish all your rights to apply for the grant (if you decide to opt-out) while in return they come in and do their own plan, regardless of your needs.
Let’s concentrate on you doing what you need to do for your local First Responders and your own constituents. You need to start your analysis today! If you are entertaining the idea of “waiting to see what FirstNet comes up with” approach, then there is one thing you should note – the Law only talks about how FirstNet can and must perform its duties. The law does not address what the Opt-Out State has to do. For example: the law only addresses the “Opt-Out” State as requiring a two-step approval by the NTIA (not FirstNet) to insure interoperability and technical adherence. If the State meets these requirements, then its plan should be approved. Once the approval is granted the State can apply for its portion of the $7 Billion allocated for the Public Safety Broadband Network buildout (theoretically $127 Million [$7B/55]) – this section of the law only addresses “State Opt-Out” and says nothing about FirstNet. What the law does clearly illustrate is a lot of restrictions put upon “FirstNet”… not the State. In short, the rules that are laid out by, and for, FirstNet don’t apply to a State that decides to Opt-Out from FirstNet. The law only states that the State has to be “interoperable” and “meet technical standards”, thus any timelines are moot in that regard, i.e. 90 days to Opt-Out and 180 to RFP a solution. Those timelines are only addressing a FirstNet solution for a State that is willing to listen to FirstNet’s plan…. thus…. a State can Opt-Out at any time and the rules applying to FirstNet do not apply.  But, those States that want to wait for FirstNet, will have the 90 and 180-day restriction apply to them, thus risk their approval and grant money if they wish to Opt-Out after being presented FirstNet’s plan. For a State that Opts-Out today then it doesn’t apply.
What’s the first step: Step 1 is a Product Portfolio that will define your revenue forecast and market plan — here you need someone who can think like a telecom/broadband entrepreneur (like me). The defined product of broadband access will be broken into service offerings that you can sell through your network. Those service offerings equate to charge-for-service which generates revenue. Broadband Product Portfolios can include 100’s, if not 1000’s, of services that can be rendered, i.e. VoLTE, Access, VPNs, VNOs, Internet Access, etc..  Each service is based on an hourly, monthly, quarterly, or annual service agreement that generates revenue. Based on the market analysis, which defines the users of the network, and aligns the phased build out of the network, you can convey your capital needs to construct and your operational needs to sustain. All of this material is then sold to the investment community.
Investors are interested in one thing — their return on investment. Does the investment demonstrate a strong return; is the user base sustainable; are the services expandable; is there an exit strategy. The documentation you put together today will generate the demand for investors that want to invest into your network, without your plan you have nothing to sell and nothing to compare.
So let’s say the investors indicate they are excited and wish to move forward, what then? Now you need to engage your financial management firm to construct the framework for the board of investors and outline your governance structure of the new P3 (Public Private Partnership) entity – in short, your “NewCo”. From this point forward the DBOM (Design, Build, Operate and Maintain) solution will be conducted by NewCo. Note that the State doesn’t have to do anything, plus being that the State isn’t using tax dollars to pay for anything you also don’t need to go to legislative session to have anything approved….no money….no budgets….nothing to approve. The beauty of the P3! But I would encourage mustering the support behind the Governor’s decision, always looks good when its a team effort.
In the end, all we are doing is creating a new broadband company for the State governed by a private board that is inclusive of the State through a shareholder agreement. This company will construct a hardened infrastructure based on a prioritized user base where as First Responders are considered Priority 1; Secondary Responders are Priority 2 and are made up of State and Federal entities; and Priority 3 traffic is allocated to commercial services through commercial entities. Why is this priority scheme and user base so important – outside of the obvious? The answer to this question is based on the P3 model being a balanced approach of needs utilizing all aspects of product introduction through wireline and wireless assets. A good case in point would be the failure of the Kentucky Wired P3.
As I stated in the past, you cannot deploy the P3 model without fully utilizing the balanced and complimentary product solutions of the wireline (fiber and backhaul) and wireless (LTE) broadband solutions. You also need to diversify the risk profile into multiple investing parties, to include the State. For Kentucky Wired, outside of the fact they tried to plagiarize my model, they only had two real investment parties and the success of their investment and implementation only considered revenue projections from the wireline portion of fiber optic network — a technology that is already in abundance through the main corridors of the State — thus it’s failure and the ability for AT&T to have so much influence in sabotaging the deal. Had the P3 for Kentucky Wired been setup to take advantage of both the wireline, and wireless capabilities, they could have capitalized on many more product offerings; thus created a more robust demand from a larger user base; and a cooperative framework that the commercial carriers (such as AT&T) could utilize to push their own product offerings at the same time increasing margins.
Unfortunately, the Macquarie deal with Kentucky Wired only addressed the fiber portion, thus its failure to allure all interested parties – including the carriers – was a huge failure. With a proper P3 (my model) AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and all other commercial entities, would be clamoring to be a part of the deal – why? Because my P3 allows the State to create a robust, hardened, infrastructure, throughout all the rural and metro areas, that is suitable for a commercial carrier to host its services on without spending a dime in capital. By hosting their services on such a network relieves the commercial carriers of the burdened of maintaining costly infrastructure (something the carriers are trying to move away from); expands their customer base to be inclusive of rural areas (something they have struggled with); while at the same time giving them more coverage area which means more customers, thus more revenue with very little overhead (something they constantly fight for).
But what do I know I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet is becoming "SecondNet" and the States are becoming "FirstNet" — Mark Levin would be proud — practically speaking anyway!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Just read some interesting statements made by Mr. Poth and Jeffrey McLeod of the NGA. Is it just me, or is there a sense of urgency in people trying to correct an image? Just saying.
The first item I wanted to address is this notion of FirstNet communicating and the States not listening…or is it State is talking but FirstNet isn’t listening? The important thing to point out is that a statement of “not communicating” or “not involving the States” is being misinterpreted by FirstNet.
“We spend a lot of time trying over-communicate to the states. We don’t view them as constituents, but they are critical partners, just like public safety and just like our federal partners.” (CEO Mike Poth)
Over communicating means someone either doesn’t understand, which I believe the States understand quite nicely, so over-communicating has developed; or, the other party is trying to communicate that they aren’t getting the “right” message from the conveyor, meaning “FirstNet we hear you plenty when it comes to what the network will look like and who will take part, what we aren’t hearing is what’s in it for me…the State…and by the way I don’t want to pay anything to have it and I want it for my own personal use as it relates to local Public Safety users – or as you put it “constituents”.
“Some [states] have expressed concern about the tone of the engagement,” McLeod said during the hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet. “During the consultation process, FirstNet has referred to states as ‘constituents.’
The term “constituents”, to me anyway, is an interpretation that the taxpayers are the ones who will get the bill…with the majority of that responsibility falling on the State taxpayer base. Why else would anyone use the term “constituents if they weren’t relaying a fact that the States have to abide by their “constituents” or “taxpayers” — which happens to be true? But, using the term “constituents” in this setting may not be a mistake at all — rather in this context it can actually be interpreted as a threat? A threat that if a State chooses to Opt-Out, then they will have to face their “constituents” meaning that if a State decides to build its own network, using its own business model, then it will have to answer to its own taxpayers. I’m sorry, but don’t they do that already? Daily? Why would this be any different than what they do already.
  • “If state officials do not like the state plan submitted by FirstNet and its contractor, the law include a provision for a governor to “opt out” of FirstNet, which would mean that the state would be responsible for building and maintaining the radio access network (RAN) within its jurisdiction. While the opt-out alternative is a legal option, it is not a practical choice for most governors, Jeffrey McLeod Dir NGA said.”

I hate to pull a Mark Levin on you, but what the hell does “legal option” and “practical choice” mean in an Opt-Out? My definition of a “Legal Choice” is FirstNet trying to shoehorn a network solution that doesn’t fit into the State’s purview. “Practical choice”? Let’s talk about being practical:
Opt-In
  • The State relinquishes total control of its network to the Feds who then picks an unknown entity to run the State’s local statewide network, supposedly for ‘local First Responders”
  • The State will get hit with a bill, by the Feds, to fund their portion of their State’s network – which is undefined at the moment.
  • The State doesn’t get any benefit of creating a revenue stream for its own use – but FirstNet does.
  • The State supposedly will get services that are cheaper than what they have today and will reach all the rural areas of their State.
  • The State has no say in who the FirstNet partners will be.
  • The State will have no say in the networks progress, nor the technical required needs of the future
  • The State will be reliant upon the federal government to build to their State specific needs – even when there has never been a successfully delivered program in the past

Opt-Out
  • The State gets to create its own Public Private Partnership with its own investors to avoid taxpayer funding meeting full “self-sustainment” and “self-funding” as required by law
  • The State gets an ownership stake in its P3 to create a revenue stream that pays for First Responder needs without taxpayer funding or grants
  • The State gets a fixed board position and a say, in how the network will be developed for the foreseeable future
  • The State gets complete prioritization of their local First and Secondary Responders
  • The State gets complete say in approving who their contractor will be to build their network
  • State gets to foster local economic development by introducing commercial access through their P3
  • State gets to create its own local job creation and reduction on taxes to the tax base – better known as the “constituents”
  • State gets to apply (receive) for their portion of the $7 Billion allocated to the Public Safety Broadband Network in support of “design and construction services of the network”
  • The State gets to step in a take over the network at anytime.

In short:
Opt-In = you pay and you get no control
Opt-Out = you receive and you maintain all control
This will be on the test later on, but which choice do we think is more practical?
Am I missing something here? When the term “practical” and “legal choice” are being thrown around, do they mean the Opt-In or the Opt-Out choice? I’m confused. After all we are talking in practical terms here…aren’t we.
“To many states, the opt-out scenario is a false choice,” McLeod said. “While there are a number of unknowns associated with opting in, very few states are in a position to consider taking on the unknowable—and likely significant—financial liabilities associated with building, operating, maintaining and upgrading a full radio access network in their states, if they choose to opt out.”
Mark Levin would be proud; what they hell does “false choice” mean? Do they mean a false choice in accepting, blindly, a FirstNet Top-Down solution? How does a State have a “false choice” when they construct their own solution to build their own network that is fully paid for by their own chosen financial partners and constructors?  The only context being successfully “communicated” here is that, per FirstNet, or maybe the Department of Commerce (which seems to be more of the fit), is that the State will have to pay the piper when the time comes, but “they” can’t define what that is at the moment…so why not “over communicate” to confuse the message? I find it rather interesting when a centralized theme of government control, who believes they can act as a telecom company, tries to build out a nationwide platform by appeasing the NGA with conservatively toned messages of practicality. Smells more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you ask me. How’s that Obamacare website coming along?
“Very few states are in a position to consider taking on the unknowable—and likely significant—financial liabilities associated with building, operating, maintaining and upgrading a full radio access network in their states, if they choose to opt out.”
First, the term “financial liabilities” is best defined by not knowing what it will cost your taxpayers to Opt-In.  Second, I have to say that such a statement is disrespectful to any State Governor. This statement basically articulates that a Governor can’t think for themselves, but the DOC – I mean FirstNet (or was it the NGA? I’m confused!) — are the only ones that can handle such complex decisions, especially as it relates to local issues of which they will heroically stand in to save the Governor from those pesky little “constituents” – you know those people that elected them into office.
As a close friend recently told me “FirstNet is turning into SecondNet and the States will be FirstNet” (Pat A.)
But why listen to me, after all I’m…

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet defines Bassackwards! How to construct the largest broadband network in the world without a defined product!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
FirstNet, you cannot rely upon the commercial sector to give you what you need. You are missing a crucial point…. supply and demand. If you want any commercial entity to produce products for your needs, you need to create demand. If you can’t create a large enough demand, then the commercial entities won’t produce. Why you ask? It’s simple, because a commercial entity works to create more revenue; revenue allows the company to hire and pay more people; new people buy houses, rent cars, pay bills and buy fancy phones; when people buy more fancy phones then the commercial entity can invest more creative product development; when a commercial company expands its product base it can sell more products, thus the cycle starts all over again. If you can’t create a large enough demand for the commercial entity to make more profit to fund their product development life-cycle, then your needs will go to the back of the line for future development, i.e. never happen.
The business model that FirstNet is targeting, top-down approach, does not address the life-cycle demand forecast that a commercial entity can use to foster their own life-cycles of product development. Once you try to ask the market to do something for you, i.e. the objectives based RFP, you will get a solution that best aligns with the commercial entities needs…not your own needs. Why? Because the commercial entity is just trying to fund its own life-cycle process and that life-cycle process has nothing to do with Public Safety. Why again? Because Public Safety does not create enough demand. If you can’t create that demand, then your model is in trouble and will never get off the ground…no matter how much taxpayer money you throw at it…thus the term “self-funded” and “self-sustaining”.
Throwing money at the issue is not a solution for creating a commercial life-cycle. By throwing money at such an issue will actually only hurt you more in the long run. Why? Because all you are doing is propping up a capital solution to an operational need. You need to address the long term needs that can foster a cyclical approach to developing products. Throwing money at an issue will not create demand. Your demand can only be created by your users. If you don’t have enough users to attract product creativity that will develop your life-cycle, then you have nothing, thus no interest from the commercial space.
So what about the spectrum? If posting the spectrum as the viable alternative by trying to create incentive is your plan, it will fail. Why? Because now all you are doing is isolating your potential respondents to entities that can actually use the spectrum. A commercial entity that uses spectrum to sell services has its own life-cycle to fund; unfortunately for you the commercial product development life-cycle is closely entwined with product manufacturers. The guy that creates the most demand wins. If any entity gets complete access to the D-Block spectrum, they will utilize that spectrum in a way that optimizes their own revenue scheme that funds their own product development life-cycle. Once again, if you want to influence that entities life-cycle then you need to demonstrate a huge demand forecast that will move their bottom line – Public Safety does not create a large enough demand that influences the life-cycle of a commercial carrier…not even close. In fact, Public Safety impacts less than 2% of a large commercial carrier operation – and I’m being very generous on that figure. In the end, by posting the spectrum as the incentive will only create a path for the commercial carriers to taking over the spectrum. Why? Because money talks and it speaks very clearly to investors and shareholders.

What is the answer then? FirstNet needs to focus on a business model that creates its own life-cycle – you can only define a life-cycle if you have defined what your product is. As a hint: the only model that will create that product and life-cycle demand will come from the catalyst infrastructure that will be developed – a truly hardened, fully interoperable and complete coverage network infrastructure. But, in order to build that infrastructure to support broadband access, you need to focus on the local level needs that fall within a given State, else you will just have a huge mess of spaghetti processes that you can’t control later on. As I stated in an earlier article, all entrepreneurial efforts associated with creating a private commercial entity start with a strategy of creating demand surrounding a product. You haven’t even defined your product, yet, your trying to tackle the life-cycle of development for a product that doesn’t exist. Bassackwards is what we call that!
But whom and I other than…
Just some guy and a blog…

FirstNet — the fat lady is singing! Sure was a lot of Q&A on State Opt Outs in the subcommittee meeting today?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Anybody doubt me now? Hopefully you had a chance to review the Subcommittee on FirstNet yesterday. One thing to note was a lot of talk, and questions, surrounding State Opt-Outs. Where there is smoke then there must be fire. You will also note that TJ is an eloquent dancer and can avoid the question like a career politician. One question that hit home was “how many States do you think will Opt Out of FirstNet?” (Congressman Barton of Texas I believe)  The answer to this question will align with my earlier projections of roughly 37 States will Opt-Out. How do I know this? Well, because I presented to all 50 States and the territories, so I have some firsthand insight and premonitions as to where this is going. You should refer to my much earlier article about Red-vs-Blue States. It only takes a hand full of States willing to Opt-Out to kill FirstNet’s top down plan, thus the dancing around the subject. By answering the question means stating the obvious…a declaration of defeat. But, like I said some time ago, in FirstNet’s mind defeat is not an option, no matter how much time, money and effort are spent trying to convince themselves of this. But, this only declares defeat on the notion that their “top-down” plan won’t work.

It’s not the end-game for FirstNet — they will just have their wings cut a little bit. FirstNet is still required for the national footprint and coordination of all the State networks. Without FirstNet administering a national solution, the coordination during multi-State, or large geographically dispersed disaster scenarios, will be uncoordinated and thus a failure.

The fact remains that the term “Opt-Out” really doesn’t exist. The top-down solution for FirstNet was never going to be successful… for building the network that is. In order for FirstNet to be successful, it has to concentrate on establishing itself in a centralized role for the State plans, plus if it wants to create a stream of revenue to build its own self-sustainment, it needs to take a minority shareholder position in each of the State’s Opt Out Public Private Partnerships. The success of Public Safety’s broadband network lies within the State’s ability to conduct its own Public Private Partnership and execute on its own DBOM solution. As part of that success FirstNet must create a centralized standard of interoperability and technical requirements. This is the only way Public Safety can monetize the use of the spectrum to optimal levels of self-sustainment.
Although a State doesn’t require it, FirstNet could also setup a framework of the Public Private Partnership model that each of the States could follow, but like I said, it’s not required by the State, but it is advisable for FirstNet in its national role.  In the end, a State does not need FirstNet as much as FirstNet needs the States. FirstNet needs to let go of the notion that it has to physically design, build, operate and maintain statewide broadband networks; it must focus instead on its centralized interoperable role of interconnecting each of the State solutions into one homogenous platform of Public Safety response and control as needed. FirstNet must work with the States, but allow the States to take the lead in their own builds and P3s, this is the only way self-funding and self-sustainment can be met.

Just some guy and a blog…