So if the terms and conditions for FirstNet describe a 20-25 year contract/partnership, then someone has been listening to my recommendations.

The scope of the RFP will have to be focused on the high level aspects of building the management of the CORE. Don’t focus on the build part; only focus on the builds that pertain to States that Opt-In. I would only recommend the awardee act in a program management capacity or investment oversight. Unless FirstNet initiates the discussion with the States to coordinate requirements for hardening, approved vendors and contractual obligations, i.e. P3 ownership and shareholder representation, then the awarded partner will fail when trying to build it themselves. Ownership of the statewide buildout belongs to the State. FirstNet, nor its partner, will be able to control State ownership unless the state gives up all their spectrum and control of the entity created within the State. I can see a few of the economically weaker, or more politically tied states (someone like Hawaii) that will dedicate themselves to FirstNet – at least for a little while anyway.

The issue for moving forward with the “Opt-in” states first is that there will not be enough revenue generated that justifies a full statewide build-out. On average you will see a statewide build-out, covering the rural areas as well as metro environments, will carry a capital cost of roughly $1 Billion per State — not to mention the outlying Big States that will cost roughly 3 times that. FirstNet will need use the $7 Billion it acquired to cover its operations level that will need to include facilities, datacenters, NOCs and other sites in support of the national CORE layout. We haven’t even begun to talk about the long-term O&M (Operations and Maintenance) costs. Without enough revenue then FirstNet will not attract private money to invest. Without a return on the investment partners will be far and few.

Revenue generation will have to come from the States. Even if you look at the carrier model all revenue is generated at the local level; after all that is where you and I live and that is where we pay our bills so that is where the carriers focus the marketing campaigns. What’s sold in Texas may not be the same in Vermont.

So lets say FirstNet moves forward before the States do. What do you think will happen — even if they get a great investment consortium? How do you justify or analyze cost estimates if you haven’t even established a relationship with the State you want to build in? For an Opt-Out State what percentage of the State based P3 will you get? How much money will you devote to the deal? Taken a percentage just to cover First Responder costs at the Federal nationalistic level will be quite small. What will the terms and conditions of that deal look like? Who will control that deal? What if the State doesn’t want FirstNet involved at all? What will the legal obligations be? A State doesn’t need anything from the Feds to build their own network and host their own P3 — FirstNet needs the State though. If FirstNet just goes hands-off with Opt-Out States then there overall mission will fail.

With the three tiered Priority of service model I just described, there will be enough revenue generated to spark the interest of big investors, all done up in a nice and tidy little State based package – none of this multi-State cluster scenarios. Just like the partners, FirstNet can NET revenue to help pay for its efforts at the local level.

There will be States that want to build it themselves no matter what FirstNet brings to the table, especially in today’s political charged world. If FirstNet wants to stay involved with these Opt-Out States, then they should outline the requirements the State can follow to construct and stake some ownership (all P3s operate under ownership and risk diversification) in the states P3. The awarded FirstNet partner can act as their facilitator, but a state’s P3 is a completely separate contract — not under the control of FirstNet. If FirstNet doesn’t address the Opt-Out solution first then they will have cut the arm off that feeds them.

One more thing…the framework of classifying users of the network must be allocated to three priority levels — not two. Priority one being First Responders (Police, Fire, and EMS); Priority two being state based organizations and companies that are essential to supporting catastrophic situations (Utilities, Transportation, etc…); and Priority 3 belonging to commercial traffic. Priority two and three will be the revenue generating solutions; Priority 1 will be the recipient of the P3 deal – thus paying for First Responders. I can think of more than a 100 different service offerings that can be developed for the Priority 2 and 3 users. I can also envision a number of customers that I know FirstNet has not even thought of yet.

Okay, two more things. There shouldn’t be just one partner; FirstNet should seek a Consortium of Partners. Why you ask? A Consortium spreads the risk of the partners and allows FirstNet not to put all their eggs in one basket; plus most of the investors (private equity) will want an exit strategy.  This allows for interchangeable partners in the deal over the life of the ownership model.

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog…

Have you been wondering why Donald Trump is doing so well in all the polls? There’s a lesson here for FirstNet – everyone actually.

Mr Trump is not a politician and doesn’t follow the traditional way of how politics is run. He goes right for the juggler when he notices something that he feels is just asinine. How can he do this? Its quite simply, he is educated, experienced and knowledgeable about how things can be fixed in the country without being held back by any political message and political alignment – he simply doesn’t care about the political way of doing business and avoids it like the plague. He sees the political machine as the primary reason we’re facing the issues we have in the country today. In essence, he says it like he sees it. He administers a solution without the restrictions of politics. It really is that simple.

FirstNet is in itself one of those fostered government solutions by the same political quagmire. I’m not saying that there aren’t some good people trying to do some good things, but in short, these people are so deeply entrenched into the political landscape that they can’t see a way out of their situation – they have become that beaten, shivering, wet dog in the corner. If anybody talks to loudly, they start to scour the impact of retribution. My advice, take a Trump moment and forget about all the political players, organizations and solutions that mandate how you need to do business. I’ve said this before, forget about the politics and act like an entrepreneur. Don’t be worried about what people think, or what they might say and do, just do what you know is right. Stop worrying about trying to appease everyone and just focus on a solution that will work. Listen to your experts (like me) and make it simplistic – why overcomplicate things – its really not rocket science. Maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate the people you have around you.

As you may have noticed, since the beginning of my blog, I’m a take no prisoner kind of guy. If I know and see the solution that needs to be had, then I will let you know – I will let everyone know. I’m not afraid of what people might think. I spent 10 years developing a solution that FirstNet can use to build the entire Public Safety Broadband Network – a solution I know will work – a fully funded and beneficial solution for all. But do I get any kudos or reciprocity in the solution? Nope, all I get is silence. This has been FirstNet’s problem since the beginning. FirstNet is so focused on a carrier solution they can’t get away from it now. What better way for me to breakdown the walls of communications than being blatant in my writings — somebody has to be listening. I’m a Trumpster in my own way — which by the way I was doing long before Donald Trump starting running for the Presidency. 

The fact of the matter is that FirstNet will have a difficult ride going forward. If I were running the show we would have been long along our way in building this network. But, due to the players being hammered by the political machine, we have wasted three years since the signing of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012. How many people could have been saved during that time? How many police actions would have been tracked and managed on a scale of interoperability never seen before? How many lives would have been saved? While FirstNet was out listening to the world and catering to the carriers, we lost precious time, time we can never get back. A saying comes to mind “lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way”. The fact is I, personally, have been evangelizing a solution from the start, yet the FirstNet leadership just blew everything off. I was more of a nuisance than a solution to them. Now my public private partnership model is being considered in many states without the coordination of FirstNet. The political machine defines a solution as one coming from their own fruition and under their own control – how could a solution come from just one lonely little citizen – why would he think he can change the world?  Oh, I don’t know, why don’t we ask Emerson, Einstein, Steve Jobs or maybe Jesus?

What’s really funny about this whole thing is that FirstNet is still taking the bait and can’t even see the cliff before them. It’s really sad actually. There are a lot of good people trying to do good things, but unfortunately they were blinded by all the non-action going on. Is there a solution? Yes, there is still a solution, but FirstNet needs to get out of the way and let the States handle this. FirstNet missed it chance to direct this ship on the right course it’s time to let the real pros drive now.

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog…

Just read an interesting article by Donny Jackson entitled “Commercial priority-service offerings promise to be eye-opening to carriers, public safety, critical infrastructure” (Dec 29, 2015) Donny raises some good points; points I’ve already made for the last two years. The carriers will do what the carriers want and in this effort their best defense is an act of open offense.

What better price is there than free? How can you, by law, say no to a no-cost proposal that doesn’t require taxpayer money? A proposal that not only feeds the engine of a complete build-out and its long-term operations, but also pays for all the First Responders communications needs. This is what The Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership does. The model is a construct of a Public Private Partnership that the State of New Hampshire is asking for in its latest RFP to build the State’s Public Safety Broadband Network. In essence this is the “Opt Out” plan for New Hampshire – although not decided yet. My intuition says that if the FirstNet plan does not meet their demands, or timelines, then this will be the plan going forward – one of many to come. 

Don’t forget the State of Pennsylvania already came out with its high-level goals of “Opt Out” as well!

The Myers Model P3 is the only model that was specifically designed to meet the demands of FirstNet and the State to build the National Public Safety Broadband Network. Don’t be fooled by others, like Australian Equity firms, claiming to use the same model. In fact the Public Private Partnership model has never been done before, as was stated in my dissertation in 2009 following 7 years of research. The fact of the matter is that there are many moving parts in this model and any false projections or misstep could be very detrimental to the State’s economy and procurement relationship with Federal contracting — take this as a warning. I created this model following more than 10 years of work. I spent long hard hours polishing the model and how it addresses the specific needs of telecommunications to the vertical industries – to include Public Safety. In its climatic outcome my work essentially states that there is no other Public Private Partnership framework that will work in this context — none.

Here is what will happen with New Hampshire, and other States putting together plans to Opt Out. FirstNet will send out its RFP the first week of January. That RFP will not be addressed to any of the States; it will be purely addressed to a commercial partner (carrier) to come in and BOT a solution nationwide. This will fall into a phase of legal interpretations, contractor negotiations and finally produce a model that will force its own demise and hamper any success. The broadband network will only cover major metropolitan networks, thus fall short in its requirement to fulfill rural area coverage. Regardless this will be disastrous to the State of New Hampshire’s plans for any type of Opt In — primarily due to the forced metropolitan coverage and the timeline to build out in the New Hampshire area in a timely manner.  I haven’t even said anything about the required “self funding capability”.

New Hampshire is doing the right thing. Essentially New Hampshire is moving forward with its own justifiable Public Private Partnership solution; primarily because the response to such a proposal is really an act of equity investor teaming and alignment of deployment contractors and vendors – all of which will be highlighted in an overall business case and high level design. You can’t solidify the funding until you have a good business case. You can’t build a business case until you have most of the projected services and offerings. Don’t get me wrong preliminary numbers demonstrate a solid win for investors to fund the exercise, but you can’t create your team until you have convinced them of their returns. On the face of it the P3 will work, it just needs to be massaged so that it can grow in its implementation. The actual build and design portion will be limited to high-level material in the beginning so as to convince the new investors to pay for the State’s network – this takes time. The State can move forward with awarding the contract immediately because the real task of designing and deploying the solution will only commence once the Governor has given his okay following FirstNet’s failure to meet their needs. As my personal historical record of my models implementation to date I can safely state that finding the investment team will not be an issue, in fact we will have to limit its exposure to certain players because of the returns and risk diverse nature.

If you want more specifics you will have to ask for a consult.

Just some guy and a blog….

So FirstNet is coming out of the closet with an RFP. What a great achievement? The government has been putting out RFPs for many years, so why is this any different? I mean we’re only 14 years since 9-11 and the concept of dedicating a communications platform just for Public Safety is just getting started? Am I missing something here? But, look at the bright side at least we’ll have another 500-page document to go through. It could be thousands of pages of a law being implemented – in triplicate – and that nobody will read. 😉

Has anyone seen a business plan yet? Don’t we need a business plan before we try and respond to a proposal? What’s the return look like? What’s the revenue forecast, service capabilities, and customer forecast? What are the terms and conditions? Am I the only one here that thinks this may run into some trouble? Are you coming out with an RFP asking me to be the entrepreneur and create a business plan that will model the D-Block spectrum for services? Why do I need you to do that? Didn’t I already try to pay you $10 Billion a few years ago for the same spectrum, only now you want to give it to me for free? What’s the catch? Am I missing something here?

The RFP hasn’t even come out yet and I already know where this is going. We have a federal government entity trying to do something the federal government has never done before; with an organization that doesn’t operate by your typical federal mindset; in an industry they typically never play in; deploying one of the largest and most advanced broadband solutions ever conceived on the planet; and trying to bring in partners they’ve never worked with before; all while protecting our most vital national asset of public safety? And, we don’t have a business plan? This is going to be long and painful…like a colonoscopy done with an 8-foot 4-inch PVC pipe. We haven’t even moved past the Obamacare websites and already we’re trying something much bigger? Are there still people out there that don’t see where Donald Trump is coming from? Hellooo…..anyone in there? McFlyyyyy!

My prediction is that this RFP will “specify” the needs that only a commercial carrier can provide, a solution to build, operate and maintain a broadband wireless network covering a “national footprint”. There won’t be much building because it cost too much money, unless the partner wants to pay for it. The solution will ask for a “national footprint”, but in reality will stipulate “if doable” and limit the real terms to only cover the major metropolitan areas – an area we already have coverage in.

This awardee will have to DBOM the entire solution and provide wireless services at a cost equal too, or less than, what public safety already gets. In return the carriers will be allowed to utilize the underutilized bandwidth (spectrum) for themselves, but they will have to build out the rural areas when it becomes necessary (which they will never do). If I were a carrier I would be asking myself what am I getting myself into? What will be in the bag I’m left holding at the end? I already provide those services today to public safety, on the same footprint, and your asking me to inject your bureaucracy into a process I already have well established just so I can access some spectrum that I may not need? What happens if I, a carrier, decide to go all content and just provide an “App” interface to make money? Will I be forced to maintain infrastructure that doesn’t belong to me? What if I don’t want to build out a hardened infrastructure to a rural county that only has 5 farmers in it? Will this be the “Internet of Things” by us providing services to cow collar tracking devices?

I’m afraid that this RFP will do one of two things: it will engage a process of procurement that will never be achievable; or worse yet hand over the keys to the commercial carriers. Why do I know this, because FirstNet will be tied up in all the legalities of the federal government and the political quagmire of operating outside of their expertise? It’s evident that FirstNet, the organization, has not addressed the concerns of the political landscape in developing such a solution within the States. We can’t just have “State Consultations” and think that we have settled all the concerns of fully addressing a framework that the federal government can interact with the State on a local level for public safety controls — let alone rendering complex service offerings of broadband with potential customers.

The fact is this ship was doomed the day it left the harbor. My interactions with FirstNet lately has been nothing short of a solid wall of “we don’t want to hear it anymore, we just want to build something, or at least start to build something before we (I) leave and pass the buck to someone else.” (FirstNet Leadership) I’m afraid this kind of lackadaisical behavior is only proof that this ride has been long, bumpy, and way more complex than they intended.  This could have all been avoided had they just acted like an entrepreneur from the start and came up with a business plan — one that realistically accounted for how these networks are built and how they are paid for…. from the bottom-up.

They also failed to understand that if you go to the “commercial carriers” for insight on how to build a national network, on the spectrum the “commercial carriers” wanted from the start, is not the best avenue of protecting your assets; especially when what your asking for is in direct competition with what the carriers already provide. A carrier will do what a carrier does, sell broadband services to the masses using whatever means they have to appease their shareholders — public safety is not the masses and is definitely not large enough to appease the shareholders. Like I’ve said in the past, we can’t build this network from the top-down, we have to build it from the bottom-up – the State bottom-up. And here we thought the deployment of LMR was a problem…relax this is going to be a long ride to nowhere. LMR was a small piece of cake compared to what this will be.

In the end, FirstNet will proceed anyway only to encourage the blasphemy of heretics like myself to say “I told you so” while we all watch a long drawn out, slow motion, train wreck. Wait to we see how many States “Opt Out” and totally put a final nail of the coffin of sustainability for FirstNet.

But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog….

Recently we’ve been hearing a lot about FirstNet propagandizing that the States can’t use the revenue generated off the deployment of the Public Safety Broadband Network.

Let me draw your attention to a very important section within the legislation:

It can’t be clearer than that. The “Except (ion)” clause specifically states that a State can generate its own revenue. In fact a State can sell service broadband services through a Public Private Partnership. Any equitable share, that belongs to a governmental body, must be reinvested back into public safety. The remaining share of the P3 formation goes to the private investment, or commercial entities. This means that if a State “opts out” then they can reap the benefits of the revenue generated off the network.

It’s quite perplexing as to why FirstNet would deny that this exists in the law. This is why I created The Myers Model® Public Private Partnership. My model specifically addresses the key areas of the law so that a State can utilize the network to design-build-operate a fully self-funded and self-sustaining solution for Pubic Safety. By FirstNet coming out and stating that the States can’t use the revenue generated by the PSBN solution is just wrong and, in fact, such behavior could be construed as fraudulent by the deceptive practice of misleading the Public and the States — thus a criminal act. I understand the stance of the FirstNet Authority to seek to protect its mission in establishing a nationwidesolution, but it doesn’t need to be at the expense of sacrificing the benefits to the States.  What we have here is a failure to communicate and an overarching demand that each party is right.

FirstNet is hell-bent in its plan to build from the top-down, when in fact we have to build from the bottom-up. Bottom-up starts with a State. By stepping out of their box FirstNet will realize that it can still administer its mission of a “nationwide” solution even if the States decide to deploy their own Pubic Private Partnership. In fact by subjugating to the States ability to control its own P3, FirstNet would stand to reap the benefits as well. As I have illustrated in The Myers Model®, FirstNet could take an ownership approach in equity while at the same time administering standards, approved vendors and hardening requirements for the States to follow. The fact is the State will be faced with building its own anyway. The party that pays the most in the public safety solution will be the party that controls the build out – the State will be the one that pays the most. If FirstNet doesn’t adapt to the State solution of “Opt Out” then FirstNet will be the only loser in the deployment. Nobody in their right mind would pass up the chance to generate revenue, create jobs and increase access for their own economic and political needs.

A combined approach of all States, building their own solutions, will generate enough resources to pay for the entire build – 100% geographic coverage – plus generate enough revenue to pay for all the Public Safety needs – down to the handset. The top down solution that FirstNet is pitching won’t be able to achieve these results. Commonsense needs to morph the attitudes of those that won’t change – or –change will be against them and force them out.

Once it becomes apparent that telecom (broadband) networks are ALWAYS built from the ground-up, things will start to click and become clear on how all the pieces fit together. As it stands, FirstNet is fixated on this notion that they have to be in charge rather than “consulting” with the States on how they can build the network from the ground up. The current structure has the Department of Commerce as the appointed authority over the enactment of the First Responder Network Authority, which is fine for administering a liaison activity on the progress of the “FirstNet solution” to the legislatures, but the FirstNet board should be under the direct guidance of the State Governors for the deployment. This is the piece that is missing and this will be the main point of contention between building the network from top-down or bottom-up – better known as “opt In = top-down” and “opt out = bottom-up”.

The DOC has no control, or insight, as to how Public Safety is administered, especially at the local level. The only governing body that can represent the needs of the First Responders is at the State local level. Yes, there are national law enforcement entities that span multiple States, thus federal organization representation is needed. But, the majority of the deployable solution will be under the local ability of the State. Why would we think that someone at the federal level is better suited to design-build solutions for Public Safety at the local level…it makes no sense? But then again I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

For those that think about “conspiracy theories” and FirstNet let make it short and sweet – there is only two ways to build the Public Safety Broadband Network:

What does this mean for FirstNet? If a State creates its own P3 broadband entity, and then build their own infrastructure, this would mean that FirstNet loses any viability to build anything under the control of the federal government.

To illustrate a lot of this thinking you can capture the high-points within a recent article by Donny Jackson entitled,  “FirstNet’s latest legal interpretations make opt-out alternative less appealing to states, territories.” (Oct 20, 2015) there are some points I feel need to be made.

For FirstNet’s nationwide solution this is definitely true. It’s never been about how the network will be built, its always been about a business model that works for all, yet protects the Public Safety industry’s needs. The model that FirstNet is pitching with the carriers, in fact, will not be economically viable. Unfortunately, as history has proven, FirstNet (the Feds) must fail in order to see what it’s missing, which in fact may result in damage being done to the opportunity and the taxpayers.

Neither is their interpretation of “FirstNet”. Do they mean “FirstNet” as in the entity? Or, do they mean “FirstNet” as in the holistic solution of broadband service? Just a simple statement like “I’m working on FirstNet” can mean two different things. I think what they are trying to elude to is that the term “opt out” does not mean the entire concept of FirstNet in whole, I don’t think anybody believes this to be the case. The term “opt out” means the State will take its own initiative to build a standardized solution coordinated by FirstNet. What business model that will be used for the solution will be based upon will of the Governor and under his purview. 

“The path to least resistance” will be for FirstNet to provide the States a framework of a P3 that enables the State to create its own solution based on a standardized framework of approved technical designs (minimalistic) and vendor-approved equipment coordinated by FirstNet. Either implementation of the “Opt In” or “Opt Out” solution was never going to stray from standardized approach of LTE. Even if the State builds its own solution, the State was never going to pay for, or sustain, the P3 entity that runs the State’s LTE broadband solution. Under my P3 model it will in fact be funded and paid for by private investors. The private investor partnership with the State will create the entity that will maintain the solution for the foreseeable future. FirstNet’s solution can’t do that. FirstNet is hoping the commercial carriers will do it, for free, in return they get to own the spectrum. In true form its called a “Bate and Switch”.

I’m sorry, but who is living a “political risk” here? The definition of “political risk” is being defined as we speak (or write) by FirstNet. Plotting “opt out” against “opt in” has been the talk of the game since day one. In fact, the political risk associated with a State Governor to “opt out” diminishes drastically; where as the FirstNet “opt in” just keeps piling on.

The fact still remains that FirstNet, in order to be a success, will still require a 95% “opt in” solution, without that, FirstNet at the federal level, will be a failure. Meanwhile, during FirstNet’s disaster party, the State will be left holding the bag and cleaning up afterwards, thus performing an “opt out” anyway. Need proof, take a look at LA-RICs, the entire scope was curtailed to one third of its original plan because of political in-fighting between the federal government and the County (State), plus the County even had internal political struggles between cities. Who is more at risk here?

I afraid to say that the interpretation of the law states the State, and FirstNet, must reinvest any profit; it says nothing about private investment income. In fact the law states that the authority is there to use commercial services to generate cash if desired. Setting up a P3 includes private investment of which represents a share of the entity created. In this case the State brings the land, access to the spectrum, and most importantly the backing of the State. The private investments bring in the cash to build and maintain it for many years to come.  The users of the network will bring the revenue.

Any money made off the network would be split between the owners of the network, through their representative share of ownership, and the State (FirstNet). The State is mandated to put the money back into “Public Safety” needs, which includes the “network”.  Users of the network come in three categories: Priority 1 being Public Safety; Priority 2 State entities and agencies (whomever the governor chooses to be); and Priority three being consumer traffic and commercial services. In this scenario there will be enough revenue to pay for Priority 1 users – First Responders.  

The FirstNet states that their commercial carrier partnership will be fully paid for and that the State won’t have to pay anything. Has anyone ever seen anything put in by the federal government that didn’t require State taxpayer money – specifically in relationship to telecommunications? Any deployment by FirstNet will not actually come from FirstNet. FirstNet will require the local contractor base of tower constructors, fiber installations and datacenter/NOC builders. This is a good thing in that “local” means within a State. It will be the base of State taxpayers that will be left paying for the remainder of the State’s billion-dollar deployment ($300 Million for fiber network + 500 Million for the wireless RAN; and another $200+ (minimum) applications delivery framework. FirstNet only has $7 Billion in the bank, which equates to roughly $125 Million per State. Where will FirstNet get the rest of the money during an election cycle?

In FirstNet’s mind they are hoping that a commercial carrier partner will come in and make the investment to build the network for them. Only problem with this model is that the carriers never build out to the rural areas (60% of the remaining landmass not covered by the FirstNet-Carrier model) because 5 farmers in a rural part of the State don’t generte enough revenue for the carrier’s shareholders. Without that ROI for the carriers, they will simply state that someone else has to pay for it – who will that be? I can guarantee you it won’t be the feds – it will be state taxpayers.   

Here we go with the “share the wealth” statement again. So let me get this straight, a State that makes extra money based on their local public safety entities and local consumers, have to pay for some other State’s solution — how will that work? What State legislator will bet his political career on that one? What will happen with the profit that the supported State makes? If FirstNet only has $7 Billion then that would mean the State taxpayers would have to flip the rest of the bill…right? I thought the FirstNet carrier model was a “pay nothing” plan for the governors? It may be just me, but am I getting the FirstNet carrier model wrong? Will the carriers come in and pay for their share? Are we stating that we will only get the funding from the federal level? Something just doesn’t add up.

The ability to “help support” other States is actually part of a State based P3 (in my model that is). In the model I have proposed, FirstNet would actually be an invested partner in all the State P3’s, thus generating revenue across the board to help, not only sustain the other States, but also for the completely sustain FirstNet itself. You notice that FirstNet’s comments still don’t address the rural areas? Who will help support those efforts? I’m assuming by “sharing the wealth” of the revenue generated by a “richer” State it will be shared for the purposes of supported the poorer states metropolitan areas…or rural…or both? I’m afraid that FirstNet may be trying to grasp hold of a large bull while treating it as if it were a lamb. Think smaller, more regional, think State based deployments.

Too simplistic in thought process. You can’t just assume that revenue from high-density areas will be split up to pay for any thing. Revenue is just revenue. What we need to do is convert the revenue into capital budgets so that we can execute a programmatic framework of continued design-build and maintenance operations. How does FirstNet plan on administering construction-based budgets for multiple States and regions on their own?

I may be mistaken, but can someone point out to me where the Act states they are to use “high-density”, “high revenue generating” as a means to pay for the network? Maybe the intent of the Act was to help with “Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation”?  Or maybe this is just scope creep by FirstNet? In the portion related to the D-Block it states the use of “public private partnership”. My guess would be that congress intended the Act to create jobs by constructing a broadband network that can pay for itself and relieve the taxpayers by generating it’s own revenue. Nowhere in the Act does it say anything, or try to relay anything, where we give the spectrum to the carriers. If I got this right, I think the Act actually states that the D-Block spectrum is allocated to “Public Safety”, not commercial carriers? I may be wrong though.

There is one term used in the Act that needs to be highlighted — “public private partnership”. Anyone who has a construction background understands how P3s work. The framework is the same for constructing tunnels, railroads, or large dams.  They use P3s in these industries because of the large cost associated with its build and operations. It’s a well-known framework of how we model large builds in many of the other vertical industries. For the PSBN what we are missing is a clear business model as to why we want to build such a large program. All we have here is something I can’t explain. The simplistic definition is that FirstNet is just lining itself up for failure by giving the spectrum to the carriers. In a real P3 all partners are contributing equally to the deal, equally distribute its revenue, thus investing in its build-out and long-term operations. What is FirstNet’s plan?

With a State doing its own P3 the risk of cost associated with the build is moot because private investment is funding the entire solution. The FirstNet model has an enormous amount of risk, not only to the success of its deployment, and its long-term O&M, but it will also be a huge risk to the taxpayers and ultimately Public Safety. As it stands today FirstNet is a huge risk in itself. Over $200 Million spent so far with nothing but a possible partnership with a carrier. The real risk is on the remaining $6.8 Billion. At least with a state build-out we can contain the solution within its borders – can’t do that with the carrier model.

Can anyone tell me what FirstNet figures its nationwide solution will cost? How do they calculate a more efficient and less costly solution than a confined State deployment? Anyone who has been in the telecommunications industry for sometime understands the O&M typically runs 10-15% of the total capex program to build it. It’s a known calculation that if a network cost $1 Billion to build it, then it will cost roughly $100-$150 Million to run it — opex. A typical statewide build-out will run you around $1 Billion easily. If FirstNet’s capex solution is $100 Billion to construct; then it will cost roughly $10-$15 Billion a year to operate — opex. Where will that money come from? The fact remains that in no way is a nationwide deployment, under one RFP, can ever be more efficient, less complex, and less costly than a statewide deployment. You can’t paint the pants on the ants down in the grass from the roof of the house.  It may be just me, but I would be more concerned with the future impacts on FirstNet’s upgrades and enhancements than I would a statewide deployment. At least with a statewide deployment we have it confined – I think I said that already.

In a state based P3 model all the upgrades, enhancements, and redesigns are under the operational framework of the private entity that operates the network for the State. This means that the private entity is responsible for the all the upgrades and enhancements based on user demands, of which some of those users will be large entities, public safety and consumers. All boats rise with the tide on these rollouts. Once again it is confined to a state jurisdiction, thus much easier to manage and maintain. It is expected that FirstNet script all standards and initial demands for constructability. Based on those standards the State, and its private broadband entity, will have something to design, build and operate against.

To conclude, I found Mr. Jackson’s article, and quotes, to be very informative of how FirstNet is thinking…and it doesn’t look good for them. But, I’m….

Just some guy and a blog…..

So let me get this straight, FirstNet’s answer to the PSBN is going to be an MVNO (Managed Virtual Network Operation) with a carrier? What that means is that FirstNet is going to become another Straighttalk or Simpletalk. These types of providers actually have no infrastructure, they lease the space on a large carriers network and ride piggyback on their footprint providing competing services to the carrier. In this case the commercial carriers will suck up the D-Block spectrum for free and administer FirstNet’s service through the additional spectrum. The fact remains the same that FirstNet will still ride the commercialized infrastructure (towers, backhaul, etc..) of the carriers. Plus, the FirstNet will only cover the major metropolitan areas, because that’s where the carriers are.

The real issue here is that Public Safety will still be on the commercial carriers network; the same network that has issues of rendering prioritization and resiliency to Public Safety when a catastrophe happens, i.e. earthquake, hurricane or tornado. Wasn’t that the whole reason for allocating the D-Block to Public Safety was so that Public Safety could build their own dedicated, hardened, network? To add to that the commercial carriers only cover 42% of the landmass in the US, that being major revenue producing metropolitan areas. What do we do about the remaining 58%?

Supposedly FirstNet will partner with rural telecom providers. If you thought the commercial standards for deploying cell phone service, with the major carriers, was bad, wait until you have to interface with the local or regional carriers. Which by the way even the local and regional carriers utilize the same infrastructure as the carriers. For the real rural areas the local or regional carriers are actually operated and owned by the utilities. In some cases you can have a lone wolf of a local carrier running service in the far reaches of open space, but they are extremely constrained in what they can offer and the age of their gear is not up to par…cost too much for these smaller guys. Plus, most of them are family owned as well — so much for the rural experiment for FirstNet.

On top of the issues with riding the infrastructure of a commercial carrier, how does FirstNet plan to sell such services, prioritized and hardened? It may be just me, but don’t the States already get such service from the commercial carriers today? Why would a State want to purchase broadband service from FirstNet when it will be more expensive, less reliable, and lacks the geographic footprint they already have? Imagine the negotiations between a State and FirstNet?

All FirstNet is doing is adding another layer of bureaucracy by installing an operational element just above the carrier and just below Public Safety. Don’t’ let them fool you, FirstNet will never be able to prioritize their traffic over the carrier’s revenue producing consumers. That would be a dumb mistake by the carrier. Nothing better than taking out thousands of dollars a second just so the Police can send some video. In fact, if this is the plan why do we need them at all? Most of the States and Agencies already get such service from the same carriers today. These are the same carriers that FirstNet wants to do a deal with in their partnership. The main reason the States and Public Safety want to get rid of the carriers is because of the priority and the hardening aspects.  There is no getting around the issue. The whole deal is setting up is turning out to be a disaster. There is a solution though!

FirstNet, just set yourself up as the operational element for the national topology of the Public Safety Broadband Network. Let the States build out their own networks utilizing a standard you create and a framework of a Public Private Partnership (P3) to execute on. As part of that P3 just state you get 5% of the revenue to help sustain your portion of the network.  Then let the States reinvest their portion of the P3 back into their own portion of the network and allow the private investors to garner revenue from the Priority 2 and 3 users. You keep the $7 Billion as part of your national footprint needs. States won’t need it because Private Investment will pay for it. In this scenario you can give broadband service to the Public Safety for free and still grant them priority 1 service. It really is that simple, especially to a guy who has been building these networks for more than 20 years.

But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog…