New U.S. Wireless Broadband Network a Boon for States June 27, 2012, 12:11am State CIOs can play a crucial leadership role as states strive to get full benefits from a Federally funded, nationwide wireless broadband network.

June 27, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

The press is getting wind now. I have been spreading the concept of the P3 model delivering the Pubic Safety Broadband Network for over a year now; its nice to see it starting to gain ground.

http://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/2012/06/27/new-wireless-public-safety-network-is-a-boon-for-u-s-states/

When the Big 5 start to take notice a lot of people start to find credibility and viability into the topic. To me it is quite clear that the P3 model (Public Private Partnerships) is the answer to the Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) deployment. Now I expect that the NASCIO (National Association for State CIOs) will start to get involved by pushing the agenda of the P3 money making model to all the State Governors and ultimately the State CIOs. Its about to get a lot bigger.

Signed,

Just some guy who writes a blog.

Public Private Partnership Flow Diagram

June 21, 2012November 30, 2016 / drmikemyers / 2 Comments

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROPERTY NOTICE: The information contained in this blog is intended only for the use of reading material. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MATERIAL WITHOUT CONSENT IS PROHIBITED. Attempts to intercept, copy or plagarize this material are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages. Please contact me if you wish to use the material posted.

The Utilities, Public Private Partnerships and Access to the Public Safety Broadband Network

June 21, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

“You have to ask yourself what amazing things come from just a little bid of greed. You show a path to cash and they will all come out of the wood work”. Friend of mine when I worked at Ericsson.

“Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.” P.J. O’Rourke

The complexities of Public Private Partnerships are unique tools of the trade. There has never been a sole telecommunications Public Private Partnership within the United State except for some small fiber builds back in the late 90’s. Even those were not very successful. Having spent the better part of 2003 until 2009 researching the topic of Public Private Partnerships, and their ability to help deliver the most complex telecommunication initiatives, they are tools that generate a lot of interest when it comes to cash. Although my dissertation topic back in 2009 was cased on the mass transit industry the idea is the same across all common verticals. The primary point is that there is a balance between business case aspirations; the need for technology to sustain operations; the best method of delivery; the reliance upon commercial technology roadmaps; and ultimately the course of “self-funding” programs and revenue generation that can be equally distributed among those that take part in the overall plan.

Balance Between Business Case Aspirations

If you work for a major Utility then try convincing the board of that Utility that it needs to be a telecommunication company. Even though it may sound like a reasonable opportunity to many that reside within the industry; I can assure you that the complexities of joining the “technology roadmap” are quite different and can put a major strain on both financial and human resources that go way beyond the original business aspirations of generating and delivering power. It is nothing new, and has been my experience, and the issue is always presented, to which many have succumb to the results; that being which business are we in…power or telecoms? The result is always the same. It doesn’t matter if you are in the Utility business, the mass transit business, the mineral and mining business or even the construction and infrastructure business… the result is always the same. Our primary business case is….

If someone out there can stand-up and demonstrate one successful major telecom job that has been successfully delivered within any other industry that has the revenue potential of what a carrier business model can deliver then please stand up. We need that business case to deliver to all the vertical industries.

The Need for Technology to Sustain Operations

I have helped design, build, maintain and operate telecom networks for more than 25 years now. I have worked on telecom solutions for high-pressure gas lines, oil gravity flow pipelines, well-heads, substations, RTUs, petro-chemical plants, major airports, mass transit solutions (to include subways, light-rail and heavy rail solutions), Class 1 Railroads, Highway ITS & tollways, healthcare, financial services, media & entertainment and even highly classified private networks; and oh yes…the telecom industry. That being 1st Generation, 2G, 3G and 4G platforms to include major fiber optic solutions for both backhaul, long-haul transport and metro fiber rings with multiple access scenarios. Across all the vertical industries the same technology is used. It may be called something different and distributed in varying manners, i.e. ITS, MANs, Broadband and/or transport networks, but in the end they all exist and operate on the same principles and commercial viability of the technology. The only thing that really matters is how it is applied to the business needs of those it is deployed for.

To illustrate: there are those within the Utility industry that believe a “telecommunications expert”, that “has never delivered a utility grid” has nothing to contribute to actual aspects of a power distribution network and thus has nothing to contribute to a Utility company. After all, taking an AMI interface modem that is wireless connected to a pole attachment, then delivered through a 3G cellular network and back hauled via microwave, or WiMax, and into a fiber optic point of presence so that it can be transported with SONET or DWDM transport platform ultimately communicating with a major network operations center and/or datacenter element really has nothing to do with power distribution itself anyway. Therefore I would suggest that maybe those people are right. The point being made is that the technology is the same in all the vertical industries. What is different is the business justification to making it happen and the foresight to build it correctly…the first time.

The Best Method of Delivery

In respects to the best method of delivery I am referring to the financial modeling tool that can help generate the capital needed to build, operate and maintain the telecom solution for the given industry client. This is where the financial delivery method becomes important. In my research I demonstrated that for a transit agency, or in this case a Utility provider, may NOT be best suited to design, build, operate and maintain a competing, and very complex, telecommunication business model within its owns operating model of the power business. Such a model competes for resources away from the primary object of that organization.

Another important point is that when Utility takes on its own telecommunications model, within its core business model, it buys into the fact that it must maintain the proper resources that must stay abreast of the latest and greatest in their given field; in this case telecom experts within a power utility company. I have personally witness levels of moral busting occur when young talented IT or telecom guys/gals are hired into a staunchly supported organization of power industry professionals. How do you explain the need to give a young 20 something year old engineer starting at 130k a year and then sit him in a cubicle next to a gentlemen that has been in the electrical industry for 40 years and is barely making 110k a year? I can guarantee that there will be some discourse. Simply the market paradyne does not mix in this case.

In short, let the Utility provider, transit Agency, or whomever concentrate on its core business to its clients and formulate a plan that allows the client to utilize a private network entity (not a commercial entity) to, not only build its communication requirements, but also take on the risk associated with the ever advancing telecommunication industry.

The Reliance Upon Commercial Technology Roadmaps

Risk. Its a short yet powerful word, especially when it comes to Public Private Partnerships. As was alluded to above; by taking on your own means to design, build and operate a complex telecommunications solutions, i.e. can’t get much more complex than the latest 4G LTE, you are exposing, not just your entire organization, but your entire business model and the survivability for the future. After all, who wants to spend $500 Million dollars on a new SMART Grid only to be informed a year before completion that the network is no good and you have to move to a brand new technology which will require a total rip and replace program. So how do you not get exposed to the risk? Well you let the risk ride with your P3 model.

A properly executed P3 model (that being Public Private Partnership) you will allow the risk to be carried by a centralized controlling agent, such as a newly generated private company — better known as a SPV or Special Purpose Vehicle. In short, as a Utility you have two options within a P3…you are a client that is getting access to the private bandwidth through long-term service level agreements and/or you have the option to be an investor in the network itself. Outside of the P3 model you can build it yourself, or use commercial services. With the lack of spectrum, and the complexity and costs associated with LTE broadband, to build it yourself will be unwise. Alternatively, to use commercial services you still do not relinquish the risk nor the cost impacts, of long term service availability, plus you may have issues with hardening requirements.

Ultimately the Course of “Self-Funding” Programs and Revenue Generation

For the sake of conversation we will focus on going with a P3. With a P3 you, the Utility, are a client to the Statewide Broadband Network in support of the National Broadband Public Safety Network. The State and the Federal Government become the tier one owners of the P3 model and thus have controlling stake in the venture and creation of a private entity that will design, build operate and maintain the private broadband network. This SPV, or newly created centralized State private entity, has the sole purpose of running a telecommunication broadband model for all the State entities. Those State entities would be Police, Fire, DHS, DOD, Agriculture, Forestry, Transportation and yes, Public Utilities (water, gas, power, etc..) to name a few. These make up the Public part of the Public Private Partnership. You may note that there is no competing business plans or overlap. The private centralized entity is purely there for the purpose of running the Statewide Broadband Network and in coordination with its higher element the FirstNet Board. The private entity will not do power, transportation or forestry services…only the broadband LTE.

In support of this model can be the availability of the State entities to also invest into the State P3 model. In essence, whether it is your existing assets, money or resource capability they can all be considered as a viable investment into the private centralized model for the State. Being that this is a “Public” and “Private” partnership, investor controls will always be maintained as proxies through the control of the State and Federal elements, or representatives, of the private centralized entities board, or shareholders. This State and Federal controlling element will never fall below 51% ownership of the P3 itself and thus the private centralized company setup to run the Statewide network. The remaining, or outstanding 49% ownership can be let to the private investments, i.e. GE Capital, Blackstone, or Warren Buffet, if they choose to invest. You should note that extra protection would be in place where as the newly created private venture would be backed by Federal and State resources; just in case the business goes under the State or Federal Government can take over.

As with any investment you need some type of return; in this case those returns will be generated through the long term SLAs, you as a Utility, will pay for to get access to the broadband network. That along with all the State entities (between 30-40 per state) would generate similar revenue through subsidized operational SLA agreements that let the risk to the private centralized state entity, or created company, that designs, builds, operates and maintains the network you need at the same time is responsible for maintaining its upgrade schedules. Those upgrades will be based on your requirements in your SLAs.

So there you have it. Quite simple if I may say so myself. Its quite clear to me on the outcome of where this is going. Of course others will truly believe that they can do better and achieve more than listening to some guy on a blog. 😉

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROPERTY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above as reading material. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MATERIAL WITHOUT CONSENT IS PROHIBITED. Attempts to intercept, copy or plagarize this material are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages. PLease contact me if you wish to use the material posted.

NTIA RFI Response How Will Existing Assets Be Utilized

June 8, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Leveraging Existing Infrastructure

How should States and local jurisdictions best leverage their existing infrastructure assets and resources for use and integration with the nationwide public safety broadband network?

Response: Through a Public Private Partnership maintained at the State level and supported at the FirstNet level will insure the solid future investment into standing long term contracts. As part of those Public Private Partnerships will be the inclusion of State entities that all have telecommunication assets that may help in the deployment and build out of the broadband plan, therefor it is highly recommended that all State entities tied to Public Safety be included in the overall plan. You should note that some of these entities are actually multi-state in nature and thus could further simplify the process of integration and interoperability between States and regions.

How should States and local jurisdictions plan to use and/or determine the suitability of their existing infrastructure and equipment for integration into the public safety broadband network?

Response: Each State has multiple entities that require broadband technologies. As with any Public Private Partnership the ability to save costs by utilizing existing resources and assets to offset costs allows for a more efficient business model. Through a process of inventory controls an audit should be conducted. Once the audit has been completed then an asset inventory, or database, of all existing infrastructure and resources can be administer through the State project office for the inclusion into the design and deployment phase. Such infrastructure inclusion is nothing new. Having experience in the deployment of thousands of tower and fiber infrastructures it is advised to maintain as many options as possible. Keep in mind that, sometimes, remediation of an existing site can cost more than just building “greenfield”.

What technical resources do States have available to assist with deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network?

Response: There are numerous assets available for any given State, i.e. Agriculture, Forestry, Utilities, Transportation, DoD and others. Through the State agencies that tie into the CIO organization you will find assets of fiber, microwave, cellular and other radio based technologies. You will also find a myriad of control centers, data centers and storage area networks tied together with large complex enterprise solutions. Outside of the physical assets you will find a whole host of technical skill-sets and talents that are very familiar with the execution, deployment and operations of many broadband technologies — to include LTE.

How will States include utilities or other interested third parties in their planning activities?

Response: As with any large programs there will be a multitude of agencies wanting access to the broadband solution. As for the execution of the program/project their will be a centralized project office for the State, most likely under the control of the State CIO, to which all State entities and agencies will flow through for resources, assets and inputs. Most importantly will be the cost cutting measures of utilizing existing assets that can be utilized to minimize cost and time. As was depicted earlier it would be essential that the Public Private Partnership also be a part of this teaming effort; in essence certain assets within a Utility, for example, could be utilized and through the use of assets they could mitigate a lower annual payment for use of the broadband network. It will be crucial that the controlling board of the Public Private Partnership maintain the equality of the State Agencies and their representation in the matter of access and asset distribution and sharing.

Should NTIA encourage planning for the formation and use of public/ private partnerships in the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network? If so, how?

Response: This will be essential to the success of the deployment and long-term operations of the network. Current estimates for the completed national network will fall somewhere between 50-100 Billion dollars. Access to additional funding and investment sources will be pivotal to making this a success.

To initiate such an endeavor there would need to be a P3 (Public Private Partnership) Committee/Department created to help with the State based formation of P3 modeling to include private investment opportunities and the reuse and distribution of essential assets to cut and streamline costs. This committee’s, or department’s, primary mission is the case-by-case business case analysis for each and every State deployed network that will tie into the overall national plan. It will be necessary to execute in a similar format as to eliminate complexities and unfair business practices and to insure equality for the investors, public and private, for each and every P3 model initiated.

NTIA RFI for the inclusion of State sponsored Public Safety Broadband Rollouts

June 8, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

What steps should States take to prepare to consult with FirstNet regarding these issues?

Response: Based on a single national design the entire concept of building the PSBN should be administered under a model of corporate structure; as with any national commercial carrier the FirstNet Board would act as the Headquarters element and the State would act as regions. It is crucial that not only the technical adherence be maintained, but it will be imperative that the strategy follow a strict path of “self funding” functionality. With the corporate structure footprint it develops a simplistic vision that allows for the creation of the governance and that self-funding model very similar to a nationwide commercial corporation with a strategic focus.

Statistics show that localized market penetration, deployment activities and coverage will make up of more than 70% of the execution, governance and corporate modeling effect. In the end the deployment, maintenance and operation of this network will holistically have to be executed at the local and/or regional stage. On a technical footprint this does not discount the oversight and control of the FirstNet with a centralized national control center to monitor and administer the entire platform; in fact this enhances it functionality and capabilities through a centralized governance, standards and cost/revenue control mechanism by eliminating multiple Headquarter type elements and focusing the direction to one entity. As with any large corporation FirstNet, in acting as a corporate headquarters, would formulate the design standards to build by; procurement procedures to contract under; and deployment methodologies for execution. At the same time FirstNet will maintain and adhere the allocation of budgets (grants) in jump-starting the deployment process.

One of the main areas of concern, outside of the technical and tactical design and deployment characteristics, will be the “self-funding” mechanism to power the PSBN. As with any corporation their primarily intent is to generate revenue, but they traditionally lack the funding, and spirit, to deploy a solution just for a societal cause, i.e. Public Safety concerns. What is advantageous from the PSBN standpoint is that it has the governmental backing to build the solution based on societal just cause but also has the capability to act as any private commercial venture with the State agencies, or entities, acting as the customers. This is the point to which is a primary reason for State to Federal consultative services to its FirstNet leadership and execution. Without the States input the Federal impact will be limited, if not impossible, in that the potential contracts from State entities are under the control of the State itself and in fact are one in the same. This relationship is a fact and must be adhered to if the Government wishes to have a successfully deployed, managed and funded program for Public Safety; especially under the auspices of a “single national network”. Without the ability to “self fund” it will make no difference on what is designed and deployed; eventually it would wither away into a state of disrepair and waste.

As with any revenue generating plan you need clients. In this case those clients are State sponsored entities that require, or will require, wireless broadband access for their own business objectives. Due to the market penetration and the adaption of LTE broadband, and regardless of the outcome of the PSBN being deployed, those same State entities will still require this wireless access in the future. Traditionally the individual State entities would either have to invest in designing, building and deploying their own solution; which ultimately would increase tax dollars spent on statewide capital programs, both Federally and State. That would mean separate statewide communication programs for Police, Fire, EMS, Utilities, Agriculture and a host of other State agencies, all requiring State or Federal financial support. Or, the State entity would require the commercialization of its business objectives by leasing such wireless services from the commercial carriers further impacting the business case alignment between a State run agency and a commercial carriers prime directive of revenue generation; all of which impacts standards and hardening type requirements. The opportunity we face today is to allow that PSBN network to be the States Private (and protected) National Carrier.

With the PSBN being administered as a “single national private carrier” would allow the State to be consultative about the use and impacts of State entities by setting up long-term (20-30 year) annual multi-million dollar service level agreements with the PSBN instead of asking, and spending, State and Federal tax dollars to build their own, or lease it from commercial carriers.

It is further stipulated that the subscriber model must be avoided at all costs. The subscriber model is the traditional business model of a commercial carrier. Such a objective would require cost control mechanisms of billing and operational support controls that are not necessary towards a private network. The revenue to self-fund this program would be based on long-term contracts as stipulated above. In essence the PSBN would act as a long term contract organization between the State regional offices and the State internal agencies (entities). Another important aspect of this setup is that it generates much more recurring revenue for the longer term that provides a reliable self-funding framework. Case in point would be the Department of Water Resources in California which has long standing contracts with 29 water districts and municipalities that have generated a cash positive inlay since its creation. Those contracts are in 50 year terms.

What data should States compile for the consultation process with FirstNet?

Response: Immediate compilation of the technical and tactical aspects of the local contracts that are utilized for the design, deployment and operations of current network plans. This will be imperative that a State compile a listing of internal State resources and entities that require access to the PSBN. This listing of internal organizations could be vetted through the FirstNet Board for adherence to Public Safety requirements and be further scrutinized for existing infrastructure that could be used as part of the PSBN build within that State.

On the “self-funding” aspect; the State could start to compile an internal State agency listing that shows what communication plans are currently under contract, under design or in the State Telecommunication Plans. As compiled against this list would be each individual State entities capital and operational costs associated with its current communication needs. This will provide an adequate annual figure for a long-term service contract as it pertains to the incorporation of the PSBN services. As an example: if a State entity currently has planned, or has already invested, millions of dollars into large-scale communication networks that could ultimately be provided through the PSBN network. This would act as a trigger for estimating a fraction of those expenditures that would be suitable for long-term standing annual service level contracts with FirstNet. This would mean that the FirstNet, or PSBN, would cover the technological curve as well as the risk of maintaining the complex communication solution for the State.

Another opportunity that is presented with the scenario is the impact of Public-Private Partnering. In essence the picture acquired from the long-term service level contracts are advantageous to private investment where as those contracts are viewed as long-term recurring revenue which acts as a great incentive. Such incentive and private investments could actually help recoup lost tax dollars spent on technologies already deployed; i.e. SMART Grid, LMR, P25, etc..

BTOP and Waiver Puts a Lull on the Market

June 7, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

With the freeze on BTOP grants to the States, and the hold on all waivers for the Public Safety Broadband Network, it has put a big damper on the plans of many. With the state of employment at its current levels it is forcing organizations to rethink there manning of potential bids. Do they go ahead and hire now and then wait? Will they have enough budgets to carry the load until the projects really start to move – if they win? Even though the mandate to get the FirstNet Board online by August…is it too far down the road before actual RFPs are let and awarded? Do the main players take the chance to hold off on hiring the key and essential players currently on the market in the hopes that no one will hire them before time runs out?

From my interpretation it’s a lot like the stock market. Given the fact that we are sitting at all time lows in the employment picture (high unemployment); given the state of financial budgets have been locked down for the last two-years (if not more) due to uncertainties in the market; observing the amount of time we have been sitting at the bottom of the curve; has forced a lot of people to believe in the “doom theory”. Where doom looms I see opportunity. I believe it is time to put our stake on the market and start to view this as a “buy low” opportunity (a bullish view). All the stocks are at their lowest in a decade. It’s time to start buying the market back. In this case it happens to be one of the biggest looming telecommunications booms in over a decade. The commercial carriers have already committed the course.

The success of the coming year will a plethora of RFPs setting the pace for a new market of broadband wireless for both Public and Private ventures. Given the time frame since the last boom in the telecommunication space; and the fact that there has been a brain drain on the employment within this sector for the last 5-10 years; plus the movement of other key technical expertise having moved to “other” industry segments; possibly demonstrates a looming war of available talent for this next telecom boom. These same talents that will be fought for have also grown weary of the telecom space through its volatility and insecurity. They have also become much smarter as to what the ideal company they want to work for should look like.

Current funding by the Obama Administration was at $7 Billion of which, realistically, only $2 Billion will be delivered. The other portion has to come from the sale of other frequencies. It may be just me, but the current roadmap of installed assets for a given national carrier runs around $20-30 Billion dollars. Not including the capital expenditures required to actually build the solutions. Those same carriers penetrate, roughly, 96% of the population mass. The PSBN will have to cover, roughly, 98% of “geographic mass”. That is a totally different scenario! Plus the fact that the hardening requirements for the PSBN are, roughly, three times that of a commercial carrier, puts a realistic budget of an installed asset base for the PSBN around $70-$100 Billion dollars (conservatively). We should expect that the operational budget (includes operations and maintenance) would be roughly 10% of the total installed asset base, in essence $7-$10 Billion a year. The capital required to build the solution is a whole other task.

Given the size of the market opportunity, and the inherent bridge between commercially available technologies, commercial (private) funding investment opportunities, and the backing of State and National Government entities, it should be clear that we face a great opportunity to deliver many jobs for many years to come.

Everyone is just sitting at the gates like prancing racehorses ready to be put into their race stalls. But it will be hard to put those racehorses in the stalls, let alone have them prepped for a strong race, if you don’t have the expertise to make it happen before it happens. Those that commit today will be best positioned to win the race when it does start…6 months is not that long before the race starts.

Out of the darkness we build the First Responder Network

May 25, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

Frantic realization starts to set in.

I have a dream of a national network that is same in every way as a national carrier — only better. I envision a wireless broadband architecture that entails the features of the traditional LMR and RF based handheld solutions, but also has the deep artistic and creative value of the smart phone; with feature rich apps that do nothing but support the needs to help all of our first responders.

Imagine its the desolate hours following a major hurricane that made a rapid course change and came ashore without sufficient warning. Through the eerie calm after the storm, and within the darkness of the night, there sits a family of six on the roof of a badly and submerged structure; a pregnant Mother, Father, teenage daughter, 10 and 6 year old sons and a 19 month old little girl. All corralled together in wet pajamas shivering, not from the cold, but the shock of where they are. There is no power. The water is everywhere. In order to survive they had to climb in desperation to the roof of their home in hopes of escaping the rising water. It’s 2 am in the morning and not a light in sight; nor a sound for miles except for the faint calls for help and an occasional dog barking in darkness. The 6 year old son has asthma and the mother is feeling pains from the stress from the heat of the night. The night air has calmed enough for the mosquitos to search for survival as well. All the father can do is start to assess their situation and notice that all his belongings; cell phone, radio, medicine, food and drinkable water, were lost in the house below. He comes to the conclusion that he is helpless in what he can do for his family to survive. With the stress, and the anxiety of knowing that he is failing as the provider of his family, his mind starts to wonder to the insane actions required.

Five miles away a patrol car approaches the edge of a wooded area. Its the end of a road that is impassible from that point further. The officer rotates his body towards a mounted laptop. This officer has been dispatched to search and rescue in hopes of possibly providing some kind of support to faint and distant cries. The officer knows that not far ahead lies a rural neighborhood that was thriving with families with children. From his laptop the patrolman then dispatches a remotely operated quad copter (UAV) from the roof of his car to view the damage area up to 5 miles away. That same UAV would be equipped with Smart HD video, SAR Imaging (synthetic Aperture Radar) and FLIR Thermal Imaging (Forward Looking Infra-Red) technologies as well as a audio output device. After a few seconds of flight at a low altitude, yet above what used to be a dense wooded area, and even in the darkest of nights, the SAR identifies movement some 10 acres ahead, within milliseconds the UAV repositions and rotates the FLIR that picks up body heat — not just one, but multiple heat signatures. The officer radios back to the mobile command and control center some ten miles away with his handheld SMART device equipped with both LMR and LTE capabilities. Instantaneously the command is viewing the officers remotely operated UAV and repositions a high flying UAV platform that was already pre-dispatch to the affected areas even before the storm hit.

Operating at a altitude much further above, and with multitude of capabilities, the platform scans a 5 mile radius with the precision of a HD solution that could read the stitching of a baseball from 10 miles above in both night and day. The UAV also includes a satellite communication multi-downlink functionality. Instantaneously this UAV picks up not just 5 body signatures — but hundreds. These images are being reviewed in realtime and coordinated through and emergency response center manned by multiple first response organizations; Police, Fire, EMS, Utilties, Forestry, Agriculture, the Navy, Marine, Coast Guard and Army resources both stationed off the coast and further inland. Through a coordinated attack, and almost simultaneously, the command center commander issues orders that activates a quick reaction EMS force to be dispatch via a Navy, Marine, Army and Coast Guard of which some have been prepositioned based Sea Stallions sitting off the coast — as well as Marine and Coast Guard fast response boats. Having already assessed the flow of the historical data from the SMART Grid, as it was affected during the storm, the command was able to accurately position power crews to start bringing the power back up, even before the storm had passed, as to coordinate the restoration of power to possible emergency response staging and refugee areas. At the same time the States Commerce, Health and Agriculture services, and with the help of the American Red Cross, were already coordinating provisions to the worse affected areas.

Meanwhile, back on that rooftop stood a father in desperation. He was already starting to envision the necessity for him to try and swim into the submerged house as to obtain his sons medications. Once obtained he would return then have to continue to swim beyond the home, in the pitch black, to try and find some type of assistance for his family. Desperation was setting in and the decision to go was made. Then out of the darkness he sees a small light and the faint hum of what sounds like a humming bird. Within seconds the small humming bird turns out to be a small remotely operated UAV operated by that patrolman more than 2 miles away. The officer positions the UAV just above the mans head and then, through the audio capability of the UAV, conveys that help is on the way and that they are due to arrive at his position within 2 minutes. Then out of the darkness he can hear the roar of the massive Sea Stallion moving in towards him. Then, almost simultaneously appears a rubber boat manned by three crew members and an EMT to which its approach was concealed by the noise of the massive helicopter. The relief sets in as the man collapses to his knees crying for the fact that his family will be saved.

I have a dream that this is what the Broadband Public Safety Network could bring. None of this would be possible without the coordinated capabilities of a States resources acting in unison under one communication infrastructure that is equipped and hardened for the worst disasters imagined. The situations are real and the technology is already achievable.

I have a dream.

May 16, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

APCO Broadband Summit and the FirstNet Board Business Case Alignment

I got back from the APCO Broadband Summit yesterday after attending the two day conference. It was the typical roadshow of where things are in the process but the main message delivered is nothing is going to happen until the FirstNet Board is created. One thing did grasp my attention though that was the panel that hosted the commercial carriers, i.e. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile and USCellular.

The carriers basically laid out a nice message of “we have all the know-hows to doing this deployment”, but one thing sticks out. The business case for a commercial carrier is about making money off subscribers and services. Nothing wrong with that, I actually support it, but the Public Safety Broadband network is not about revenue creation; at least on the face of it. It’s more about setting up a private protected broadband network using LTE to insure there is never a lost emergency call, or command response, during a major incident. With such a gap in the business alignment why would the carriers be trying so hard to get the soon to be established FirstNet Board (who will oversee the PSBN deployment) to agree to use their networks instead. In essence the carriers want the spectrum for their own use…that being to make money off subscribers. What really surprises me in that some of the influential members of the APCO community support this thought process. I understand the fact that the carriers probably know better than anybody else to deploy a commercial broadband service for subscribers, but this is not a commercial broadband network (actually they know how to make money off the network not actually build it. Other integrators actually build them usually under a premium of pass throughs in cost).

What if the commercial carriers just waited? As part of the FCC’s requirements there exist the need to establish broadband access to the rural and far reaching urban areas so that everyone can have access to broadband technologies. If I were a carrier why would I fight to deploy the costly infrastructure (due to hardening requirements it may be as much as 3 times the cost of the typical commercial broadband deployment) when I could just wait and then perform a much more efficient Managed Services contract with the State and/or FirstNet to have all the broadband subscribers in the rural areas access through the FirstNet network and piped back to the commercial carrier networks? To me this would be a lot more cost efficient for the carriers themselves. But one further thought remains…that being the survival of some of the carriers themselves.

With the consolidation of the commercial carriers, and the lack of spectrum, some of those carriers do not have the right spectrum to sustain their business for the long-haul. case in point; T-Mobile. Its a known fact that AT&T and Verizon have the adjoining bands of spectrum that surround the D-Block for Public Safety. Being that they are the largest commercial carriers in the US means that the OEMs will manufacture phones in to meet the requirements in those bands, which means other bands will not get the attention needed for the long-term, thus comes end-of-life on certain product lines in the phone areas. This causes a snow-balling affect whereas the infrastructure follows. If you aren’t in that curve of technical development then eventually you are doomed to fail if you don’t adapt. Thus someone like T-Mobile needs to be able to build markets that the OEMs will manufacture too…but the two largest are not playing in those bands so the fight for survival through spectrum allocations begins. This is why I believe you have the carriers clamoring to win Public Safety Broadband developments. They want the spectrum.

The spectrum belongs to the Federal Government and should be sublet to the States for deployment, execution and operations. It has to be State centralized because have you ever tried to run maintenance of 30,000 cell towers within the localization of one State from Washington DC? It’s not easy and requires 3-4 hour response times which means it has to happen locally. The FirstNet Board should act as a corporate headquarter element then create the design template, establish the procurement procedures, outline the governance model and then allow the States to build to those mandates. A typical State has roughly 30-40 State Entities. Most of these entities have some form of Public Safety and Emergency responsibilities. Those State, and entwined Federal Agencies, are the real clients for the Public Safety Broadband Network. Most of the press today only talks about the Police, Fire and EMS portions, but they will be only a small piece (yet critical piece) to the overall client base for this network. As an example: if another hurricane like Katrina hits and you don’t have power utilities as part of the Statewide Emergency response scenario then they are doomed to their reliance on the commercial carriers for communications for all their SMART and electrical grid operations. The SMART Grid to-date has been deployed using 3G technologies. Those same Utility players have now been given notice that 3G is end-of-life and that they need to move to LTE, but you only have two choices for LTE service if you don’t have your own spectrum; commercial carriers or the FirstNet. I shouldn’t have to explain what happens if the Utilities are forced to utilize commercial hardening standards.

As was the case for the automotive industry; is it the duty of the Federal Government to help the commercial business case of the carriers? Why can’t we just focus on the design, deployment and operations of a Public Safety Broadband Network? Leave the business of commercial broadband business to the carriers and let the FirstNet build their own private architecture by not trying to shoehorn a business case of the commercial carriers into this mold. Lets just build it to the requirements of the States and the Public Safety entities that reside within them; then let the commercial carriers compete for the non-prioritized rural and urban subscribers who need broadband access later. After all, tying ourselves to the commercial carriers does not resolve the case of the Earthquake in DC, or the 9-11 disaster. Commercial cellphones failed in those instances why would this be any different?

P3 Model for Funding Public Safety Broadband

April 18, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

The following is a chart I put together to outline the Public Private Partnership relationships and financing alternatives. Please feel free to comment. It is a work in progress and will include many more topics that just can’t fit in the picture.

Public Private Partnership Model by Dr.Myers

700 MHz Wireless Spectrum Sharing with Public Safety

April 13, 2012 / drmikemyers / Leave a comment

The following is a High Level Discussion on Network Build-out Cost and Financing Options.

These are meant as discussion points.

The question: how could the Utilities play in the Public Safety Broadband initiatives?

Using the design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) model of constructing the Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) will follow traditional models of wireless communication development. There are a host of contractors who currently deploy, nationally, varying degrees of 3G and 4G platforms today. The important aspect of how these networks are built and funded has traditionally been based on a revenue-generating model such as AT&T and Verizon. The business model itself impacts the primary difference at the conception of the network design. Thus the design considerations for the PSBN will follow a different path, which itself is primarily not a revenue based business model, but can be modified to have revenue generation as part of the design.

There are two primary business models associated with self-funded deployments for large-scale telecommunication networks; a subscriber based and a leased contract base. Both of these constructs will impact the design and build phase differently.

The subscriber-based solution will require immediate subscriptions to help fund the initial design. Given that this is the latest generation of wireless we should expect complications in that the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturers) have not had time to fully development user devices to communicate with the network through a large amount of available handsets. There will be a small amount of user devices available, but nothing to the scale that will be needed to self-fund the entire DBOM scenario.

Another area of concern with the subscriber-based model is that the model itself has been proven to lack justification and assurance that it truly pays for itself. It is well know in the Telco industry that the largest players are having difficulty funding their own deployments using this model. The ARPU (Average Rate Per User) modeling of revenue generation continues to decline with the onset of more cost effective technologies as well as consolidation of technology platforms, i.e. move towards all IP and the convergence of 2G, 3G into 4G. One has to remember that these commercial networks have more than 80 Million subscribers each (AT&T and Verizon); thus if they themselves are having an issue it would be unwise to believe that a few thousand handsets for First Responders within a given State would suffice.

The alternative modeling to a self-funded solution could derive from long-term leased contracts that are better suited for just such an implementation. Such a model is conceived through the use of Public Private Partnerships (PPP or P3) in that all parties involved have similar requirements for the technology; may have infrastructure or processes that can benefit the network; have long-standing expenditures already for communications (primarily in the capital and operational expenses associated with already installed solutions); and have an open standing to generating revenue.

Executing such a model will ultimately require the PSBN to be built at the State level. The State is most likely better prepared to construct, control and maintain their portion of the PSBN all while closely maintaining the varying Public Safety entities requirements within the State; to include Power Utilities. In essence we are not building anything new. The only thing that is unexplored is the PPP model funding the initiative.

What would the network build look like? What should the expected costs be? As it pertains to any large-scale complex program we truly won’t know that answer until a detailed cost estimate of the scope of work can be administered. As it stands, any of the States that have already submitted waivers to access the PSBN frequencies have most likely completed such preliminary estimates. Although the figures are not concrete, by any means, we could expect that the cost structure of the build outs will incorporate two essential elements; cost of the services (construction and integration) would be roughly 80% of the entire capital budget for the entire solution. The remaining 20% will be allocated to materials and equipment (both OEM, tower, tools, etc.).

As an example: the cost of a highly populated region for 113 existing tower solution; with fiber already provided; and a single Core (LTE controller); such a solution would typically be in the ballpark of about $40 Million. That equates to roughly $350 K per tower, where as $30-$32 Million for deployment and construction related services (including design) and roughly $8-$10 Million in equipment and materials.

Similarly, a rural 201 new site solution could be expected to be in the ballpark of $80 Million. That equates to roughly $400 K per tower, where as $60-$64 Million for deployment and construction related services (including design) and roughly $12-$16 Million for equipment and materials.

There is a vast host of variable cost impacts associated with these builds, so these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. But, in conceptualizing a State budget for a Centralized model of a P3 this provides you with enough insight to start aligning potential investors as well as required allocations from the entities within the State that will require the broadband service. It is imperative that these figures be updated to reflect true cost of the capital program to build the solution and subsequently should include the Operation Expenditures (OpEx) required to run it.

As a note: typically the OpEx portion of running a network equates to roughly 10% of the total Capital Program to build it.

Having a rough estimate of what the network solution could eventually cost, it is now the time to look at the available resources within the P3 to help DBOM the solution for the State. Following a standardized process of procurement and design considerations that the FirstNet Board would have created. It will be essential to understand what entities could be involved, such as Power Utilities for example. There are many other entities that are similar but Utilities makes the point.

For any given Utility it is relative to point out that roughly 20-25% of its total installed assets, i.e. cabling, towers, trucks, etc., has to do with IT and Telecommunication solutions. That means that if a Utility provider such as AEP, which has an installed asset base of roughly $50 Billion (reference latest Investor Reports) and covers 11 States they typically have spent, on average, as much as $10 Billion on all their combined IT and Telecommunication needs. That could mean that they would spend annually about 10% of that total $10 Billion, or $1 Billion a year in CapEx and Opex necessities to build and maintain technology solutions just to keep their business in operations. What if they could now offset that $1 Billion annually to a fraction of that cost by joining forces with a Statewide centralized P3 partnership?

In joining a PPP that is designed to DBOM a Statewide LTE broadband network could ultimately save the Utility a lot of capital at the same time alleviating risk to a player who has its best intentions at heart all while investing in the same solution for added revenue. Simultaneously the Statewide centralized network operator that is created under the PPP would benefit from offsetting deployment and infrastructure costs as well as implementing a large possible investor by joining forces with a Power Utility that already has the footprint and the know-how in building such complex solutions.

These solutions are at the cusp of reality and should be expected from any of the Public Safety entities within the State, or Nationally. All of the State, or National, Public Safety entities have similar demands, infrastructures and requirements; most importantly they all have a common demand for the latest broadband technology.

In conclusion, it’s imperative to understand that the PSBN is itself a carrier class network that has the technical capabilities similar to the commercial carriers. But in this context has a limited pool of potential users. It is crucial that the right construct of a model to self-fund the program be instituted. Although there are many ways to fund such an endeavor there is only one way that meets all the requirements of a solid business case that can compliment all who take part in its implementation – that is the Public Private Partnership model funded with long-term contracts from fixed users.

1. Financial Approach: Funding

a. Introduce and define possible funding scenarios

i. Federally subsidized

ii. State subsidized

iii. Public Private Partnerships

b. Public Private Partnership Model

i. Centralized Special Purpose Vehicle (CSPV)

1. Design

2. Build

3. Operate

4. Maintain

ii. Recurring Revenue or Self-Funding Requirement

iii. Clients/State Public Safety Entities to access Broadband Service

1. Client Requirements/demands

1. Police

2. Fire

3. DHS

4. DOD

5. Utilities

1. Power

2. Water

6. Transportation

1. Mass Transit

2. Rail

3. Highways/Bridges

2. Service Level Agreements

3. Contractual Obligations

4. Long-term SLA Contracts

5. Subscriber Based Comparison

iv. Private Investment

1. Investment Startegy

2. Investment Needs

3. Investment controls

v. Centralized SPV Board Control

1. Investors

1. Private

2. State

3. Public

vi. Revenue Model

1. State Entity entitlements

2. Asset and Infrastructure Offsets

3. Revenue sharing model

4. No Commercial Service

Advancing Telecom

Doing FirstNet Right

Uncategorized