One can never get enough of bits of information that put a clear perspective on where things are going and what it is we’re holistically trying to accomplish. Case in point, a recent article in Fierce Wireless entitled “Report: Verizon, T-Mobile spending consistently on capex, while AT&T, Sprint hit bumps” (October 13, 2014 | By Phil Goldstein)

In the article it explores the capital expenditure of the two largest carriers in the US; Verizon and AT&T. I want to bring to everyone’s attention the very last paragraph:

If that doesn’t give us an eye-full of what we should expect for FirstNet, then I don’t know what will. The article only addresses the capital expenditures (CapEx) here (money needed to spend to do one-time projects or programs such as an upgrade) have nothing to do with the long-term operational expenses (OpEx). The fact is a government-funded approach, with bonds and grants, will not work in this instance. The money is just not there and the taxpayers are consistently becoming a bit perturbed about our spending habits. Let alone we can’t risk the impact on the timeline associated with the upcoming election cycle.

The elections will have an impact on what funding we were already allocated. It will be arduous for anyone to convince everyone else that we need another Federal Organization to build something that should be delivered by private industry. If building a website for Healthcare is any gauge, then we must observe all the red signs. It’s not that the people within the Government are all bad, it just means I wouldn’t expect a Federal Organization to market and deliver a website – that’s not what they do. I also wouldn’t expect a website company to perform as the Federal Government. The National Broadband Network is much larger and definitely more complex and costly than a website. Whatever course we set today could be disastrous for many if not done correctly.

I just completed my response to the RFI advertised by FirstNet and I have to say that the idea to do one holistic national build-out approach is a disaster in waiting. If you use the website for healthcare as a case study you will see that their approach to the market place took a “top-down” approach, just like FirstNet has proposed for its RFP in the future. Had the website been designed bottom up, then things would have turned out drastically different. It would have been manageable with a grounding of lessons learned. In the case of FirstNet I think there may be too many people drinking the cool-aid that just because the Public Safety Broadband Network, once completed will be twice the size of the two largest commercial carriers combined, that we should mirror how we build using their perspective. There are no shortcuts here. We have to start small and build big. Going full-bore at the top level is definitely not how you want to try and build National Public Safety Broadband Network. We have to start locally and build-up. Trying to rope our arms around the whole national solution will be extremely inefficient and succumb to problems, delays and over expenditures, thus wasted tax dollars.

One good thing I did see in the RFI was the thought process associated with “thinking outside of the box” and the “creative approach to financing”. If FirstNet is serious about their intentions then this will be the savior. The fact is we can’t build this network without substantial private investment. How do we attract private investment? Well the only way to accomplish this is through Public Private Partnerships (P3) – a P3 that generates a return on their investment.

In order to insure the success of a solid P3 we need an ability to stay focused and establish a solid understanding of what it is the investors, us, are investing in. By stating a holistic national strategy only complicates that message and distracts the investor’s focus. Once the investor completes a thorough review of the opportunity, they will pass judgment as to whether or not it is a sound opportunity.

The focus of FirstNet is too broad, complex and outlandish in its strategy and will only result in a confused investor; or it could setup a monopolistic solution from a given few.  The investors want to see a realistic and logical flow of what it is they are investing in, which ultimately creates the projected ROI or payback. The investors also want to see equality in the investment opportunities. We can’t get there from this holistic national programmatic approach. Without meeting those basic characteristics, plus, add the perception of a Federal organization in bed with a commercial carrier, only forms a bottomless pit of wasted time and money — money that is obviously going to be needed for “our own” upgrade.  If the referenced article above is any indication, then we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg on this one.

The network rollout solution, and its self-funding needs, must start with one or two States. We must start at the granular level in order to keep a perspective to control the outflow of lessons learned, as well as to track the progress needed to schedule its build-out nationally. As I have stated early in my blogging days, its only a matter of time for the States to take hold of their own destiny – FirstNet needs to envelop itself into a partial ownership role for each of the State’s executed P3 frameworks else it will miss out completely. FirstNet also needs to start focusing on the national applications and control center roles, where as they need to start envisioning their control centers, datacenters and applications store – that is what this RFP should be about. Let the physical build happen at the State level. Working with multiple States to build their own infrastructure of broadband is much more of a manageable approach than shot gunning the entire barn. Nothing is perfect, but some things are just better aligned.

Remember, AT&T just spent $33 Billion in two-quarters for an upgrade of LTE — we haven’t even installed our baseline infrastructure yet. But who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog….

I want to address the recent article by Greg Gordon, dated September 24^th 2014, entitled, “Emergency communications agency finds ways to hire friends, skirt competitive bidding”. First I have to say Mr. Gordon captured the empirical facts of the progress to date, but looking too close at the evidence can generate thoughts of crucifixion. In reality what we have here is a failure to communicate, plus an eager board and Chair that really wanted to show the Federal Government how business is done in the commercial wireless world. As I spoke about in a much earlier blog posting, can we blame those that were only doing what they were asked to do with what knowledge they have? Sam Ginn was a carrier-based leader that traditionally focused on a subscriber-based model of cellular service…. he was not an infrastructure specialist or market driver, which inherently takes a special breed.

This is what you do when you are searching for your next gig…you blog.

In a recent article entitled “US telcos shy away from broadband definition benchmark boost“, 

Summary: Two of the United States’ largest telecommunications companies, AT&T and Verizon, are shying away from the government’s move to boost its definition of what constitutes broadband from 4Mbps to 10Mbps. (By Leon Spencer | September 9, 2014)

It’s an interesting yet natural occurrence to understand that the carriers are moving away from the notion of 10Mbps because of one underlying need: infrastructure. What I’m talking about is that the existing infrastructure is dated and antiquated towards a role of providing service with lesser-known technologies than what exists today.  The fact is today’s technology, more specifically LTE, is designed at twice the amount of coverage than the “old” 3G type services.

Typical designs of past 3G services were focused on roughly 3km circle fixed from the center of a tower (depends on terrain) of which was to reach an optimal bandwidth of 1-3 Mbps – thus the 4 Mbps reference. For LTE the design is at 6-8 miles for optimal bandwidth coverage of 1Gbps (first generation LTE at roughly 890 Mbps) within the sweet zone, yet can still reach upwards of 30 miles at yet 1 Mpbs – thus the 10 Mbps requirement. LTE Advanced, and the radio designs coming out today, are even twice that coverage area and three times the bandwidth to the sweet spot; so naturally what this means is that we cover more than twice the area and with way more bandwidth functionality, thus less than half of the capital required in the past to build it. But why are the carriers not seeing an ability to build out more if it is cheaper today than yesterday?

The fact is that the voice services of the past are next to nothing now days, thus the carriers are driven towards becoming a commodity of access to the same customer base of subscribers of which is the meat for all their bottom-line revenue — but things are changing and they know it. The carriers have all eaten a bad case of Fugu, the Puffer Fish, which has paralyzed them with lethal amounts of the poison tetrodotoxin. Given the size of these carriers today, they find themselves inundated, or paralyzed, with old existing infrastructures of assets that are irrelevant to todays current market, thus the sell off and the re-organization around services and content. (reference “Crown Castle Announces $4.85 Billion AT&T Tower Transaction”) The real question is will they survive? Can they relinquish all those assets in time? Is the subscriber based business model so entrenched that there is no way out? The carriers aren’t alone.

The cable industry is also in the same boat, but even worse. In a recent article dated September 09, 2014, “Broadband policy history reflects unusual bipartisanship”(By Stuart N. Brotman of the Hill) it is evident that the cable industry is facing similar yet even more archaic rules of a business model that is also based on connectivity and subscriptions. One thing that the cable industry has over the carriers is that they have been in the content delivery business since the 70’s. Content and services has always been the real moneymaker for the cable industry and the physical network of assets was just a means to an end – why else would you direct bury a coax or fiber cable? But, maintenance on any type of hard asset in the field is a cost burden on the bottom line. The answer to the cable industry, or I should say content industry, is to carpe diem the streaming content delivery platforms, such as NetFlix or even the Aereo model. Me personally I don’t even pay for traditional cable television type services anymore, which saves me about $150 – $200 a month. I am much more willing to pay a small monthly charge of $8 bucks for unlimited programs, and being that I don’t watch that much TV anyway, it still pleases the kiddos. The point is even the cable industry (what we term the MSOs) are held back by owning their own “old” infrastructure which detracts from their overall revenue base.

Even the fiber optic industry with players like AboveNet, Level 3, or WindStream are even seeing the abandonment of old infrastructure and the move towards services as the viable alternative. In a recent article entitled “Windstream to Spin Off Some Assets Into Publicly Traded REIT” (by Lance Turner on Tuesday, Jul. 29), one can testify that the move by WindStream is a direct play to relinquish their assets and to move more towards the commissioning of content and services. I applaud WindStream for making this move. It is a very smart move to make especially given the expansion of programs like the Public Safety Broadband Network, or FirstNet.

The fact is that with all the talk about the FCC, broadband as a utility, and the reclassification of the cable industry, we are in the midst of the commoditization of the access model and the revitalization of the content delivery solutions that were the driving force of the telecom bust back in 2000. No I’m not saying we are in another bubble, in fact just the opposite, what was lacking in the past was the infrastructure of applications that we have today. With the advent of the “App Store” we now have more data driven applications than ever before. Had such an infrastructure been in place before the build-up of the 2000 telecom bubble we may have seen a whole different outcome, essentially it’s business 101 – demand drives services. 

As is the issue today, we are still held back by the archaic architectures of long ago. Just a little side note: the exact hype of a network build-out is happening, or has happened, in the SMART Grid industry. As I have written about many times in the past, the fact is the Public Safety Broadband Network is the catalyst to building a true “utility” version of telecommunications infrastructure to deliver the content and services market that the carriers, the cable MSOs and the fiber players are all striving for. There is only one way to delivery such an infrastructure of assets and that is by using the traditional concept of the off-vertical industries such as, the transportation and large scale construction industry use of the Public Private Partnership methodology – this is the basis for The Myers Model®.

But I’m….

Just some guy and a blog….

Just read the following blurb on the web entitled: “FCC’s Tom Wheeler Admits There Isn’t Really Broadband Competition”. This article got me thinking about FirstNet and the FCC and all this talk about no competition and the renaming of broadband as a utility – what does it matter? One side is talking about infrastructure; another side is talking about broadband speeds; and then there are those that just want it to get so complex that nobody understands it.

The fact is that the broadband market of yesteryear is on its way out. Carriers don’t want to carry their own assets because it detracts from their bottom line, which, by the way, is shrinking every time someone announces a new pricing strategy of $45 per month for unlimited services – all you have to do is sign a two year agreement first. Seems we have a lot of that going around.

The paradigm shift is into content and services all managed through the cloud. Voice services are still an essential part, but I don’t know about you, I haven’t paid for landline phone service in years, yet I still have a desktop phone. How does a carrier compete with that? Well they move to wireless voice and data all while selling you a $600 smartphone.  Now, along with my desktop phone, I can make calls with a half-dozen different phone lines all from my Smartphone, and still not pay a dime for the service. The fact is voice used to be the driver, now data is. The entire infrastructure of assets has become commoditized to the point that it already resembles a utility, so if the carriers are trying to get rid of their burdening assets to increase their margins, then why not grasp hold of it and actually create that utility infrastructure? The main reason why they don’t want to reclassify broadband as a utility is because of the isolated and protected market positions of the incumbents. I say if the Utility can make a business case, and wants to own the infrastructure of assets, then why not let them? Sometimes you get what you ask for.

The Utilities are not aligned with the commercial broadband market, they are aligned with Power, but why would they think renaming and owning the infrastructure is a good thing — when in fact it’s a bad thing. If you rename broadband as a Utility then you own it — with all those burdensome assets that the carriers are trying to pawn off. If your business plan isn’t solid, then all you will be doing is flushing a lot of cash the drain, cash that could be better spent on Load-Sharing or Microphasers. Have you ever tried to get a budget for communications within a Utility? Trust me you are not on the top of the totem pole when it comes to the Utility Boards. 

The perfect setup for establishing a statewide broadband solution within a State is through the FirstNet Public Safety Broadband rollout. Build the infrastructure like a power distribution network; only stay focused on broadband as your business, and commit to prioritized service levels, i.e. Priority 1 Public Safety; Priority 2 Infrastructure entities, like the Utilities; and Priority 3 traffic for commercial services. In the end this network will be much better, why? The reason being is that true broadband envelops wireline (Fiber) and wireless (4G LTE). Of course there are a host of other technologies for backhauling and last-mile access, but what if we could build an infrastructure that could be hardened and standardized across the board for an all-encompassing solution of broadband access for everyone, then an infrastructure of communications would emerge that opens up a new market place for services, a true market place.

Imagine being a local or regional carrier (or Utility) who is boxed-in and suffocated by the big-players in the market. This isn’t real competition, as was highlighted in the article, this is what we refer to as bullying or strong-arming. What if the local Telco could access a truly hardened and secure infrastructure of assets that penetrates every square inch of the State? Not spend a dime on capital to build anything and yet, with the passing of a fiber optic cable, access every constituent within the State? Overnight that little local carrier could have a much larger market than the big carriers who are weighted down with entrenched infrastructure that only targets the metro markets. It’s a pure profit play for the small guys, and the big guys if they decide to play as well; where as none of the assets have to be carried by anyone in the commercial space anymore freeing us from the binds that holds us. But there is only one real way to get there from here. The way forward is through a Public Private Partnership solution – The Myers Model® in fact.  

As of today we have the trial State taking the leap of faith in the Public Private Partnership (P3) solution, and I can safely say they will not be disappointed. The P3 solution, in fact, is the only way to balance the needs of all that partake, while at the same time leveling the playing field for market competition. A provider is not bound by the infrastructure they own. Delivering content and services for each an every Telco, or service provider, will be based on simplistic Managed Virtual Networks, much like you see today. Companies like Google, Straighttalk, or NetFlix can now access more broadband users throughout the Nation, the Myers Model® incorporates just such a solution.

As a recent friend said, “your either at the table or your on the menu and about to be carved up for the main meal.”

All this talk about the FCC, the carrier competition landscape, broadband becoming a utility and any other issue becomes moot. The answer to broadband to every American in the Nation, rural, suburban, or urban is through the Public Safety Broadband Network using The Myers Model® P3.

But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog…

Doing it the right way! Kentucky has started its rollout of broadband. Well we are off to a great start. We do have our first State making a run for the Public Private Partnership model and we have many interested parties that want to partake.

This will be great for the Commonwealth of Kentucky; it’s constituents; healthcare system; financial markets; economic development; education; Public Safety and First Responders. There be no fear because the Public Private Partnership is not a new format to execute large complex builds – just new to broadband, thus the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership.

Out of the gate we have a tremendous amount of interest. We are making great strides with the private equity players, General Contractors, sub-contractors and vendors. We are also having a significant amount of success with commercial service entities willing to pump broadband throughout the entire State utilizing the State’s Public Private Partnership. As it was laid out in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012, any under-utilized or un-used bandwidth can be sold for commercial services and the Myers Model™ approach is perfectly setup to execute on that law.

The only issues we are having is that the State and its solicitation process do not align properly with the Private Equity pace of understanding and commitment. When you are negotiating a Billion dollars for a network, you don’t want to rush it. But, in the end the payoff is tremendous for the P3 entity as well as the State. It’s just a matter of time and patience.

There are a whole host of States that are watching the development in Kentucky, a few even disappointed that they didn’t execute first, but in the end at least we have forward movement in constructing the Nations Public Safety Broadband Network. As you can see for yourself the State has issued two RFPs. The first RFP is to construct the fiber optic backbone – better known as Phase 1.

Phase 1 Fiber Optic broadband deployment is in support all the State agencies and entities that require fiber connectivity. One of those stakeholders of this fiber optic network will be Public Safety, most importantly, FirstNet.  The fiber will be designed to accommodate the broadband wireless infrastructure throughout the State. This is the core fiber backbone and last mile access solution

Phase 2 is the wireless broadband (LTE) portion, better known as FirstNet. This wireless solution is a perfect addition to the broadband fiber solutions for the State, most specifically will be the re-prioritization of Public Safety being first. This is the mobility portion of the State’s broadband solution.

Phase 3 will be the applications layer of Managed Services as well as Security based operations, such as Cyber Security. This will be a significant piece to the puzzle in that it has the potential to reap the most benefits. This is where such platforms as interoperable cell service, NG-911, secure Public Safety Mobility, educational support structures, healthcare solutions, Utility SMART grid and many others will take place. These are the apps that will ride on top of the fiber and mobile wireless broadband solution for the State. 

By phasing it in this approach we manage to give time to the wireless portion and plan better for the applications layer.

I applaud Governor Beshear, and his staff, this really is a great plan….now lets give sometime for Private Equity to get onboard.

Just some guy and a blog…..

There are probably a lot of you out there in the world of ether and broadband connectivity that are wondering what is up with all the same old presentations from FirstNet…me too frankly…but I have a theory. The theory is that we are being conned. FirstNet has been working the carrier model since the printing of the infamous 400-page business plan that nobody is supposed to know about and that is owned by the Federal Government. The con has been performed on the malleable and has been the secretive plan since day one. If they aren’t actively engaging any other plans, or just continue with monotonous “outreach” topics, as proof to the progress being made, then I’m afraid their State consultation phase will only try to maintain secrecy around their plan to partner with the carriers. Why would they do that you say? Well let me explain.

It’s simple, it’s all about the money:  the population of California is 38 Million residents. If we target, lets say 20% penetration for commercial services using the D-Block spectrum at $50 a month, then that means $380 Million dollars a month – 38*.2*50 = 380 Million. Once again that is $380 MILLION a month to the commercial carriers, or 4.6 Billion annually…oh and yes they will allow the Public Safety to be on the network – for a fee. It’s all about the money and the monopoly…or is it all about the monopoly and the money?

I can guarantee you that Chief Fitzgerald will probably be the next to go, which could mean whistle blower laws being broken. My gut also tells me that Bill D’Agostino did leave for personal reasons, but it may have only helped mask a difference in opinion between Bill and Sam Ginn. If that is true then my theory is coming to life. The “silent coup” is still underway (as I have written about in the past).

The fact is the Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership makes so much damn sense that FirstNet has to keep their plans a secret, else they will lose all their potential customers and the use of the spectrum. Plus, lets be realistic here, 36 of the State’s lean right which means they are more prone to not accepting too much from the Federal Government. It’s the big elephant in the room…and it has some really big tusks. The fact is we have an election year coming up; we are more than $16 Trillion in debt; the job market stinks; the economy is on life-support; our healthcare system is a website that doesn’t work; and the administration still thinks what happened in Libya is a good thing. Who in their right mind thinks we can keep this up? What do you think will be one of the first things cut from the budget? My guess is that it will look something like a 7 followed by 9 zeros. Why appropriate money to the Public Safety Broadband Network when the State, or region, can monetize the spectrum for their own needs? Especially when there exists the Myers Model™ that can completely build and sustain the network without hitting any taxpayers.

Hellooo! McFly! Are you in there?!

If the States “Opt Out” and decide to build it themselves by monetizing the use of the spectrum for their own needs, well, then FirstNet’s carrier business model will fail…just add it to the list. Why should FirstNet, and the commercial carriers, be the one’s that monopolize the spectrum for their own benefit by monetizing it over a State’s needs? They will say as Frozone on the Incredibles once said “it’s all for the greater good” when in fact such a carrier relationship will still not address the rural coverage requirements, plus will still hit the taxpayers up for money, which makes it ironic that it comes from the Middle Class Tax Reliefand Jobs Creation Act. . The only way it makes sense is if the plan is to monetize the spectrum for their own needs – and those needs don’t include the States, or Public Safety. My guess is that the root to all evil lies within one of the 7 deadly sins…that being greed.

Like I have written about in the past, FirstNet actually has more to gain by siding with the Myers Model™ approach, but who am I other than…

Just some guy and a blog…

Recent article on what President Obama said, entitled “President Announces Public-Private Partnership Initiative for Infrastructure Development”. 

Have you ever tried to get a program, or project, done when the CEO makes a direct order to do so? You get a bunch of people stirring around looking for direction so that they know what mundane processes they need to setup that matches what he just directed everyone to do. Ultimately what the CEO is trying to do is spark ingenuity and creativity, but instead what we get is exactly the opposite, instead of opening up the creativity it commissions the organization to act within its current makeup of people.

Being that it came from the CEO, those that handle the day-to-day operations will not make a move unless they get specific rules of engagement because they don’t want to lose their jobs – these are the amiable and analytical types (see Personality Profiles developed by Peter Urs Bender) and typically these types don’t want to rock the boat with change. We see it all the time, it’s that guy, or gal, that really doesn’t have much skills other than keep the lights on — not that that’s a bad thing, there is a place for everyone — but these are the people who manage to stay employed no matter what happens. These types manage to keep their head down and out of the line of fire allowing them to avoid the fight. Actually, if you think about it, these workers are analogous to the typical career oriented federal workers. You can’t blame these people for what they are, they’re just doing what their genetics has programmed them to do. What is really at fault is the state of our nations economy.

With the lack of financial support to expand our productivity and creative approaches in expanding business, we are stuck in a mode of “protect your job mentality”, which is perfect for the analytical or amiable types, but is disastrous for driver and expressive types. The driver is the type of personality that wants to lead and drive to get things done; the expressive are those that make the sale and sell the business into new business. If the money isn’t freed up, then the creative and new business will not occur, and if you aren’t looking for new business and creative solutions to expand your product, then you are in a mode of hoarding cash, essentially cutting staff to eliminate those that are trying to push the business into new business – essentially eliminating their creativity, and entrepreneurial activities, thus the companies overall success — essentially the company has moved into stagnant mode. What’s worse is that this hoarding will continue until the economy starts to show signs of relief so that the company (CEO, in this case the President of the United States) can free up the cash to spend on new business. What does this have to do with FirstNet? Well everything actually.

With the current state of the economy, companies are holding back the creativity associated with building the Nations largest telecom job ever, actually all the industry segments are doing the same thing. Our problem is that those that are actually sitting in control of the program are those personalities that are inherently analytical and amiable; this means we will be inundated with data, material, meetings and confusion due to lack of leadership, which is exactly happening. This does not mean these people, currently in the leadership roles, are bad people, it’s just what the market demands right now. The fact is we can’t accomplish what we need to accomplish if the economy doesn’t improve. An improved economy will allow the companies to free up the money. We also can’t do make it a success without a mixture of the analytical, amiable, expressive and the driver. Are we in a state of the chicken, or the egg? Yes.

In perspective, the commercial carriers were created with the entrepreneurial spirit and the leadership and salesmanship of the drivers and the expressives. The operations of the commercial carriers are run by the analytical and the amiable (hunter versus gatherers). The fact is we can’t have a good model of execution and strategy for FirstNet without the partnership between all four-personality types; and we can’t do that if the economy is not there to support it. Is there a solution? Well yes, and the President recognizes the solution when he opens the gates for the Public Private Partnership models.

Now there are those that believe the carriers, working with Federal Government, is a Public Private Partnership, in actuality you can call a mailbox working with a postman a Public Private Partnership, that doesn’t mean it’s a Public Private Partnership that will work. After studying the topic for many years, there is only one solution for FirstNet that is the best suited for what we are trying to do and I developed that in The Myers Model™.

The President is not telling us what to do, rather he is telling us we can do, and it is based on our own creativity and willingness to step out there and present ideas; thus the rational behind The Myers Model™ Public Private Partnership. The wool has come off the eyes for many of the States as well. The use of the Myers Model™ is nothing new to them and they are just now finding that out. It’s a process they have done a dozen times for other large “infrastructure” jobs. That is what’s so important to what the President is saying. My suggestion here, is take hold of it and lets get going.

You see I’m the personification of the driver mindset. I get up everyday thinking about ways to make things a success, and to me this FirstNet network is as clear as day on what needs to be done, but I can’t get anything done unless I attract “followers”. I only represent one quadrant of the personalities needed to execute FirstNet – which are you? What do you contribute and how do we get the team together to execute this?

Just some guy and a blog…

Has the shift started to happen? That is, has the focus on FirstNet started to shift toward the States? It would be a naturalistic turn of events given that the closer we get to that faithful old quote of “you either need to lead, follow, or get out of the way” – a very familiar phrase to those of us who spent time in the military. The closer we get to the notion that we actually need to start executing something, and stop flabbergasting our way through the minutia, we realize the execution means fiber, microwave and access edge construction – physical construction. Let the States start issuing RFPs and then let the Governors and their staff decide what is best for the State. Let the better business model win.

If that is indeed the case, and the shift has started, then FirstNet has a much bigger problem ahead, that is fighting the lack of confidence from the States in its ability to get anything done. FirstNet should work with one State and implement the process advertising an RFP for the business model and its implementation. What better way to understand the best course than to actually start the journey?

In the end all we can do is submit the strategy and see what’s comes of it. There are those that will steadfast in their ways and will be unrelenting in protecting their share of the turf, but in reality all they are doing is going down with a fight, which in the end is just bad for Public Safety and not good for the legacy they leave behind.

Building a wireline and wireless network is nothing new. There will be those that try to convolute the message just to convey “how complex the solution is”, when in reality its just another fiber, microwave and access edge network. But, it is anticipated that there will be those who have their own agenda of aligning to the cash – believe me when I say — this network will make a lot of cash and there are those that know this. What better way than to cloud the message with perceived complexity, in order to advance your own cause, in essence, acting on fear. In reality fear is just something we make up for something that may never happen; but there are those that use fear as a tool to get the less informed to do what they want. In the end it’s just something we make up in our own mind. I can guarantee that we will make mistakes, but have faith that this is nothing new and should be viewed as so. You don’t see me not getting on an airplane simply because I don’t know how to fly it, just get on, sit down, and let the pilots take charge; after all, they have been doing it for years.

There is nothing wrong with the drive towards cash; after all it’s what got us here in the first place. The strategy of how we get to that cash just needs to be led with the ethical position of building it for Public Safety and not for some corporate framework to continue a dying business. With this in mind I am not against any model that will help build the Public Safety Broadband Network. I am one of those pilots who have been flying the plane for many years. If you want me to get you where you need to go, then eventually you need to let me fly, and you need to sit back and relax.

The States are not idiots, if you aren’t in bed by 11pm – come home. The fact is we need to execute now, or a network that should be completed in a State in 24 months will take 24 years — if you run the numbers that’s a lot of catastrophic events that could be expected in that timeframe (or a long time sitting on the tarmac). If the network is just another network then why wait? Just move forward with the RFP and procurement strategy, but it has to be a strategy that addresses the requirements in the Jobs Creation Act, just like a pilot needs to follow his rules of piloting. There is only one model that will achieve that – The Myers Model™, but who am I other than…