FirstNet — Governor holds up State’s ability to create jobs and foster economic development for ideological compassion?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Governor, what are you waiting for? Do you realize that you are the only one holding up your State’s next big job creator, economic catalyst, and income source? By waiting for FirstNet you are only extending a bad view of your own mindset and how the State can be improved. The scope of the National Public Safety Broadband Network is not about broadband – it’s all about building a large scale, protected, infrastructure.
Anybody that’s been in the telecom industry for the last 30 years can tell you, FirstNet’s issue is not a technical problem; we’ve been deploying LTE for more than 10 years now. They will also tell you that it’s not a tactical deployment problem; we’ve been building telecom infrastructure for more than 40 years now. What any telecom veteran will tell you is that FirstNet’s primary problem is financial. You solve the financial problem then everything else within the technical and tactical requirements will fall in line.
The second issue that FirstNet faces is credibility. How do you convince someone who has already committed themselves to NOT rely upon the federal government to do anything local? How do you convince a State Official that someone outside of the State can do anything better than what they can do for themselves? The fact is you can’t. You cannot change someone who has committed themselves in the mind. All you will do is waste a lot of time, energy, and money trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to change. Ultimately the end result is you giving up later on – even if you force them to do what you want. Sound familiar? Any parent can teach you this fact of life.
Anyone who is already committed in the mind, will not falter from their standpoint; in fact, they will only become more defiant to your demands — then everyone loses. The only thing you can do is understand their point of view, commit yourself to help them where you can, and adjust to repair if they fail. In the end, it’s not about who has the bigger stick; it’s about getting something done. Just accept the other viewpoint, then move on to others who support your more direct idea. Stop worrying about interoperability, or control, no one wants to build an isolated broadband network that doesn’t work with anyone else – that’s counterintuitive. Once FirstNet understands this, then trust will start to ferment.
The law states that the Public Safety Broadband Network has to be “self-sustaining” and “self-funded”. These requirements, along with technical and tactical requirements, become the basis for everything that FirstNet has to do going forward. There’s no such thing as partial government subsidies, grants, or taxpayer funded bond, that defines “self-funding” or “self-sustaining”.  The only way to achieve total “self-funding” and “self-sustaining” is to be a private commercially driven solution focused on prioritizing Public Safety. The only way to achieve a commercially driven solution to meet the financial needs of support for Public Safety is through a balanced Public Private Partnership business model built from the bottom-up — The Myers Model. “Self-funded” and “self-sustaining” is the antithesis to President Obama’s viewpoint that “they didn’t build that; the government did” approach.
In fact, the law, as written, is the basis for the converse approach and ultimately the antithetical desires of what the President was signing into law (HR 3630). In short, the President declares publicly that solutions, like FirstNet, are not built by the individual, but rather the government; then turns around and signs a contradictory law into existence. By the President singing HR 3630, of which specifically declares a “self-driven entity”, separate from the Federal Government (FirstNet), and then factually stating that the solution that “FirstNet” is to deliver is required to “self-fund” and “self-sustain”, only illustrates that the whole process for FirstNet was doomed from day one. Kind of like “War of the Worlds” – the Aliens were doomed the moment they entered our atmosphere.  
How will FirstNet, or at least the Public Safety Broadband Network, be saved? That one little clause in the Act that states that a State can “Opt-Out” of FirstNet and build it themselves using their own “Public Private Partnership”. If you look back at the development of the law, it’s like someone knew that this was going to be a disaster from the start, thus, they managed to put in a “backdoor” for States to escape and act upon. Just the thought of a “backdoor” is an illustration in the lack of support for a total government delivered solution. In the end, the “Opt-Out” approach only illustrates that there was never any real belief that the government was going to succeed anyway, so why wait now?
Realistically, the notion of failure for the “top-down” approach is starting to take hold. Why else would you put out a hail-marry of an “objectives based RFP”? As I stated, if FirstNet is devoted to their “top-down”, “all for one federal approach”, to building the National Public Safety Broadband Network, then let them. As written in the “Art of War”, “never interrupt your enemy as they fall”. But, having pushed the Public Safety community around for so long, then not delivering a convincing message of a solution, has only depleted the trust to a point of dissociation.
The fact remains the same – Governor — why are you holding up your State’s ability to capitalize on the creation of new jobs, more economic development, advancing commercial services, all while prioritizing Public Safety onto a broadband infrastructure for your State? Why are you listening to someone who isn’t local to any of your concerns? What do you, and your constituents, have to gain from watching the FirstNet “top-down” solution fail? What do you really expect you’re going to hear from FirstNet on what their offer is to the State? Don’t you see that by acting now you can foster a more convincing position with the people that elected you? Why do we need to wait for a FirstNet solution you know you are not going to run with anyway? Just congratulate FirstNet on their achievements so far, then move on and do what’s right for your own citizens. Take it from a guy with more than 30 years in developing the broadband industry….no one is going to build and prosper more from your own network than you.  
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog……

FirstNet – States are starting to Opt-Out!! Uh-Oh!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
The fact remains the same “why would a State want a Federal Organization to construct a local State network?” More than 75% of all the traffic routed and generated on any given network is locally driven – and that is a conservative 75%. That would mean that less than 25% of the traffic is routed and generated non-locally. What percentage of that 25% actually has anything to do with a federally driven program of operating in a “Public Safety” capacity?
If any given network is layered in security and is addressed to meet the demands of three pools of priority clients, i.e. Priority 1 being First Responders; Priority 2 being Secondary Responders; and Priority 3 being all commercial traffic (non-public safety specific), then you can quantitatively measure the historical packet driven logs to isolate network traffic loads between your usage base. In short, I can look at the logs and isolate what the traffic patterns are for each priority group.
The three priority group scheme is actually not something I just made up. The scheme is a basic network design of layered user access prioritization for any given network. It just so happens that a three priority group function fits perfectly for what Public Safety needs. By functionally isolating these three groups of users we can then adopt specific virtual network topologies in segmenting traffic loads and assigning them class codes to meet billable traffic patterns – down to the individual packet level. In layman’s terms, we can use our three user groups and isolate every individuals network usage and then charge them for their use. Why didn’t I just say so? Because, I’m a PhD and that’s how we roll.
Why am I even talking about this? Because this is a way overly simplistic view of a very complex network that needs to be created, operated, controlled and self-sustainable across a very diverse group of users all focused on their own needs. If 75% of all traffic on a network is locally generated, why would we think a 25% of the remaining non-local traffic should dictate the overall design and control of a State’s network? I can assure you that the 25% is actually much smaller and will realistically be around 3% of usage based on Federal public safety support solutions. In short, any State that Opts-In to a nationwide FirstNet solution will in fact be controlled by less than 3% of user traffic.  
Now let’s look at the actual 75% of the network. Of the 75% of the network the 3% figure translates into local Public Safety traffic patterns as well. Why? Because test have already shown that local public safety traffic generated on any given network has less than a 3% usage factor. Meaning, local Public Safety guys/gals only use 3% of the networks they have today and is presumed to be the same on the new network. With a 3% usage factor means we have more than 97% availability on the network for Priority 2 and Priority 3 customers.
Priority 2 customers are unique in that they will be administered as both a Secondary Responder as well as normal business operations. As an example; a Utility can be classified as Secondary user of the network (or even temporarily commissioned Priority 1 status) during a disaster to help with first response needs. During non-disaster times a Priority 2 Utility could utilize the network for its SCADA or micro-phase networks in maintaining its electrical distribution grid.
Priority 3 customers are the non-first, or secondary, responders. But, you should realize that any user of the network could be re-organized on the fly as a secondary or first response need demands – it’s all up to the “local commander” on the disaster scene. Meanwhile, while no disaster exists, the priority 3 traffic users can utilize all the underutilized or unused bandwidth for commercial operations – generating revenue.
Generating revenue will be crucial to a State’s need to be self-staining and self-funded. As predicted, in my model, the revenue generated from Priority 2 and 3 users will be sufficient in meeting that demand – and then some. BUT, if a State Opts-In to FirstNet then it will not be the ones controlling that aspect of the network and will in-fact relinquish that control over to FirstNet –or worse yet a commercial contract that FirstNet administers.
The terms of FirstNet’s RFP is asking for a $5 Billion dollar annual payment for 20+ years, so let’s use that as a basis for discussion. Now I’m no math mathematician, but $5 Billion divided by 56 (States and Territories) would equal roughly $90 Million a year for each State…if the State were to see any of that money…and that is GROSS not NET. Realistically how much of that $90 Million do you think a State would be able to benefit from? How about none. Why can’t a State benefit from the annual payment to FirstNet? Because the law states that “FirstNet” must reinvest all its revenue back into the network, it says nothing about the State. In fact, in the model suggested by FirstNet only allows for a “service offering” to the States, so in short the State will see nothing from that revenue. The big winners will be the commercial carrier, or contract entity that FirstNet awards the RFP too.
The commercial contract established by FirstNet will generate Billions of dollars for any given commercial carrier. Even more pleasing is that the commercial carrier doesn’t have to invest any more money than they would have already invested in infrastructure. Remember, the commercial carriers are only interested in the geographic localities that generate money, thus the major metropolitan areas (where they already are). So why would a commercial carrier, or contract entity want to be awarded the contract? Because they don’t have to pay for the spectrum!
Anyone that has been in the telecom industry for the last 40 years will tell you that the most expensive part of building out a network has to do with acquiring the spectrum and putting in your backup solutions on cell-towers. The cost of buying the spectrum dwarfs any capital or operational program. In this case a commercial entity can avoid those costs — thus is way more receptive to building the network for “Public Safety” reasons. As I wrote about in the past, this whole deal is about acquisiton of 20Mhz of spectrum – that’s it. That 20Mhz of spectrum is very valuable and if you can get access to it for free, then why wouldn’t you? What’s the carrier plan?
If I were the CEO of one of these carriers, I’m thinking long-term. I would just partner with a good team that brings a message of fulfilling the demands of what’s in the RFP. Then, overtime, I will start to provision services onto the network (after its built) that enforces reliability to meet government demands. Eventually the State, or FirstNet, will come back and ask for build out to the rural areas, but at this point I have the State, and FirstNet, over a barrel, because of all the commercial and local prioritized traffic being used on the network. In short, FirstNet and the State will have no control at that point and then the spectrum will be fully under the control of my private commercial operations. Pretty sweet if you ask me. I’m able to build a network, enhance my own network, add more capacity, have the taxpayers flip most of the bill, generate lots of revenue, and not have to spend a dime on any of the spectrum. Outside of being an ethical issue, why wouldn’t any commercial entity want to reap those benefits – on the backs of Public Safety, the taxpayers and a naïve Federal entity? If you get a chance read a book called “Snakes in Suits”, it will explain a lot.
So let’s look at the makeup of a Rivada-Mercury that is being boasted about. To tell you the truth I like the framework of execution on this strategy, the only real issue is the terms and conditions of who owns the network, who’s in control of the network, and how would a local State Public Safety Organization be able to influence the architecture when he needs it? The bigger problem here — and why this won’t work — is the “Top Down” approach, which by the way I just see Rivada-Mercury as being reactionary to the RFP thus would explain their pursuit to get States to Opt-Out. The teaming established by Rivada-Mercury is good, although I would shy away from the vendors having any say on position in a holistic national goal, especially if those vendors don’t have any scope in the deal. Who wants competitive vendors fighting over a market they aren’t even playing in yet? The structure is based on my model of a P3 partnership to bring in the financial investment to build it; an EPC to manage the build and construct it; both major vendors of LTE (and Fujitsu) willing to sell you equipment – I mean who wouldn’t; and a carrier relationship to keep others warm and fuzzy. The big issue is really the “top-down” approach. I think Mr. Ganley knows this, but he’s playing both sides of the fence in getting some kind of an award, which is understandable, but raises another issue…. trust. How do you “trust” a double agent? Short answer is you don’t.
The one good thing about a double-agent is you know where they stand. They are in it for themselves no matter what. So when the time comes to make the decision to go with the double-agents plan, you know you are taking a huge risk….in this case you are risking a whole lot of political infighting, taxpayer commitments and etc… I’m not saying Mr. Ganley is a bad guy, in fact in such complex situations it’s good to have someone with that kind of drive and enthusiasm on your team, but the board will need to keep a short leash on him so that they can control the trust issue – I’m sure that’s why they have a new Co-CEO (very smart move).  
Regardless, the framework they propose can work, but needs to be applied from the “bottom-up” – a State “Opt-Out”.  The complexity associated with adopting such a framework is too cumbersome to manage, in fact, it’s impossible. The real question is who owns the network and how can a local guy get the support they need to do their job? The solution that Rivada-Mercury is putting forth will not meet the demands…in fact…no federal top-down solution will. My suggestion for Rivada-Mercury would be to elevate themselves above the direct role when it comes to their teaming effort and focus on more of an executable framework to which they could plug and play new players in each role. Don’t commit yourself to a solid team until everyone completely understands their role and that role may take some time to understand. The only plausible way of doing this will be by focusing on the deployment in geographic areas, but don’t forget about State controls, legislators, and governance structures. But, if you take on this role you are in fact a Program Manager and thus will relinquish control to the more local or regional executable players. The more you give away in your capital program the less control you have over the ownership, which makes this position impossible from a national federal level. Piecing together individual State Opt-Out solutions, using the same framework of execution, is actually where Rivada-Mercury needs to focus. Leave the national FirstNet solution to another Program Manager. Just because you are a Program Manager at the federal level doesn’t mean you have any control over what happens in the State, i.e. the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. What I’m trying to say is that executing on such a framework is nice, but if you haven’t realized the full context of all the variables, and how they will impact the solution, you are in fact introducing time delays, legal consensus, political correctness and money. Stay local, stay small, and focus on “cookie-cutter”. Which begs to question…is this really what a State wants to buy into?
The fact is we’re only touching the tip of the ice-berg of complexity here. Will a State Governor, as they are exposed to more and more of the complexity of the FirstNet national solution, see any benefit in Opting-In? In essence, the case is being made for Opt-Out by FirstNet itself. The more we learn about the complexities of deploying such a solution from the “top-down”; the more political in-fighting we see; the more greed is exposed; the more we understand that we need to KISS it – keep it simple stupid. Hopefully FirstNet is starting to understand this scenario themselves, thus will change course and focus on the “bottom-up” solution, whereas each individual State (who is capable) can build their own solution within their own boundaries. Using the framework that Rivada-Mercury is presenting (although I can see the very similar approach to my own) is in fact the way for the build-out to happen…BUT…from the ground up. For what the Rivada-Mercury team is proposing they really need to focus on the State. What FirstNet needs is a Program Manager – that’s all. Someone who can manage FirstNet requirements for national control centers, centralized datacenters, and most importantly the connectivity with State control centers, datacenters, etc…
So here I interject, if the framework that Rivada-Mercury is selling is the solution, then multiple teams should be developed to compete in the same space. I can tell you that I’ve been working closely with many of the States and proposing a similar solution, but in the model we propose we run the EPC/vendor/P3 framework that demonstrates complete Public Safety control to the State and its interoperability with the nationwide FirstNet top-down solution — while at the same time not costing the taxpayer a dime and allowing the State, and FirstNet, a solid stream of revenue. How do I know this? Literally I wrote the book on it. All of what the Rivada Mercury team is proposing is based on the context of my model that I’ve been exalting since day one – only in this case I did not expose everything to the open forum. After all, I need to protect the secret sauce. The fact remains that Rivada Mercury has done a good thing in opening up a new can of warms of competitive landscape. I congratulate Rivada Mercury for doing this.
Why am I praising another team’s proposal that competes with my own? Well the fact is simple, in a heroic fashion this is way bigger than me, or any one team, but more specifically it’s because I see a competitive fabric of competing bids to the Rivada-Mercury solution as the answer. In order to build out his entire solution we will need competition. If the competition understands the framework, such as Rivada-Mercury now does, then many more teams can be setup to compete in this huge market place. Plus, what better way to moot the competition than to introduce more competition? It’s like I planned it all along…imagine that. The fact is the Myers Model™ approach, that Rivada-Mercury is using, is just a model. If you don’t know all the parts and pieces to how it works then you will fail, or your client will fail, it may take a while, but it will happen, thus the risk. Do you ask a baker to build your car?
The context of building out this network will be based on availability of local resources to construct and manage the eventual market. We are talking about a whole new market that will dwarf the current TURF market by 3-4 times…that’s a lot of people going to work.  If I can make a buck in helping that goal be achieved then that’s gravy on top, but in the end I am, as I have been since the beginning, focused on the tax relief, jobs creation portion of the new law – the context of putting Public Safety first so that it can achieve its mission a mission that will touch every one of us when time calls. If I were focused on the money, then I would have ad’s on my website.
If you want to setup your own team to compete in this market, then let me know. Working for my current employer allows for me to consult on all levels of the opportunity and provides the depth of the solution. Plus, it helps when the company you work for has a long history of putting together these large-scale P3s and has been fully engaged with State Opt-Out solutions. It’s too big to win it all for ourselves, plus it takes a lot of good partners to execute. Just so you know, the most important piece to understand has not been divulged, that needs to be applied to each P3 team that is setup to go after each State Opt-Out solution. Think of it this way, each State will in-fact create its own private broadband company.
So you want to be involved, but don’t know how? Let me know. We can help. It’s really not that difficult. The most difficult thing to consider right now is how to put your team together, of which we have formulated a few already – specifically for this opportunity. It’s not about the overall national FirstNet program, it’s all about the State. The model we have presented, to many States now, is solid and can be made up of many different partners. We have partners now, but we can use many more.  
Just some guy and a blog…
    

FirstNet – I rant because….taking lessons from Motorola is where you need to go.

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
I know there are people that wonder why I’m always on the rant about FirstNet (the organization). In my mind its quite simple…if you know someone has good intentions, has the technical skillsets and knowledge to execute, but constantly makes blind mistakes about how to capitalize on a business model that benefits all, you realize that you have to keep a fire under them until they come to realize that they need to stop trying to be the smart guy in the room and instead focus on resources that just make sense. If you realize that you aren’t getting anywhere with the plan you set forth, then it’s time to change. You will garner more respect by changing course and focusing on other ideas that seem to make more sense. Motorola is a perfect example.
The CEO of Motorola (Brown) came out recently and stated that Moto is focusing on its core business of LMR and will remain vigilant of the LTE broadband progress. This is a big change from the past few years. Every time we heard about Moto trying to go after large LTE buildouts, it was reminiscent of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The entire market knows Moto is all about LMR, or at least they were, thus became confused as to why they were trying to build out LTE when they didn’t even have a product in the space. This is a big lesson for FirstNet.
I get hints that FirstNet is starting to understand its position and is making changes to adjust to “better ideas”, but to make this a success there are a few key things that need to happen:
1. FirstNet needs to clean house. Get rid of any carrier ambitions and avoid the carrier lobbyist;
2. FirstNet needs to reclaim its stake as an independent entity. As an independent entity FirstNet can engage its most valuable weapon in its arsenal – creativity – without it you might as well stop today. Federal centralized mindset does not go well with a fine wine of creativity;
3. FirstNet needs to focus on the “bottom-up” approach, meaning they need to work with the States and allow them to build the physical solution themselves. Stop trying to create a complex broadband solution from the top down – it simply won’t work and is probably your best bet to losing your entire budget, your people, and State support;
4. FirstNet needs to refocus on the big picture and oversight of the CORE network. Everyone is always talking about control of the CORE and the cost is prohibitive – that is simply not true. To start, a CORE solution at the State level is required for local control of financial systems, tracking, operations oversight. Why would FirstNet think that it needs to control a CORE in a State? I can understand the need to take control in the event of a large-scale disaster, but why try to control the handset usage and billing operations of a local Fireman in Boise Idaho? It makes no sense. The fact is the term “controlling the CORE” was actually just a soundbite to scare the States into thinking that FirstNet will be in control.
This notion of “controlling the CORE” was actually started at the very beginning of FirstNet and under a whole other organization whose intent was to envision their own non-transparent plan and then start constructing without the State’s input. Essentially, the past leadership thought they knew how to build and run carrier solutions, and rightly so being that they came from that market, but this was not a commercial carrier operation and it was nothing like a carrier operating model. BUT they knew better than anybody else, so why listen to anyone else. You can’t fault the leadership though, because it was individuals that participated in the creation of the MCTR Act of 2012 that set the individuals in motion. The overall message these individuals started to spread was “it looks like a carrier network, uses cellphones like a carrier, and is based on the same concept of cell towers as a commercial carrier, so the carriers are the best people to build our solution!” This was the catalyst to the raging fire that would follow.
Following the disaster of the first few years of FirstNet, which was a total waste of time and taxpayer money, the new leadership started to take control, unfortunately the ship had already struck the iceberg. Even though Sue Swensen took control of the FirstNet Board it was too late to repair the image of past wrong doings…I think she realized that from the start, thus her reluctance to take the reins the second time…but she took control and appointed a new CEO — Mike Poth. Unfortunately, someone let Mr. Poth put his foot in his mouth right out of the gate.
On his first day in the hot seat, Mr. Poth declares that “the carrier solution is the best solution and thus we should partner with them to build the FirstNet solution”. This statement rekindled the distrust between Public Safety, the States, and FirstNet once again. Fortunately, Mr. Poth got the needed support and they commissioned an “Objectives Based RFP” to the open market, but it was too late, especially given that FirstNet had still not communicated the openness to accept other business model’s counter to their original plans to partner with a national carrier — at least open enough to build trust. The distrust is still present today. Who wants to engage in a long-term struggle to get buy-in on a different business model that competes with the notion of FirstNet’s original thoughts of partnering with a carrier — the result was a lack of real responses for the FirstNet RFP. Once again we find ourselves on the catalyst of change.
I believe that had FirstNet not engaged carrier talent and leadership from the start, things would be drastically different today. As I discovered years ago, the carrier based model of subscribership alone, is not sustainable – even the carrier market understood this years ago when “All IP” came out — thus the downturn of the telecom market place and the over commoditization of access services. Basing a business model on a sales approach of selling to subscribers will not carry the load, especially if your needs are based on Public Safety, complete coverage, and hardened availability. If the cost to maintain a commercial network, and its operations, is too high for even a carrier, why would adding on a whole lot more infrastructure, more than twice the amount of coverage, and fixated with interoperability necessities be any better?  The only solution that FirstNet has – and should have listened to from the beginning – is a State based bottom-up approach utilizing a fully financed venture public private partnership model. This was the lesson I learned many years earlier and following years of deep research on this specific topic. After all, I had to do something during my 30+ year career in the telecom space, why not publish a big dissertation that nobody would read?
If there are any words of wisdom from this, it would be that FirstNet needs to take a lesson from Motorola; focus on its core requirements from its core base of customers – the States and Public Safety – and fashion your business model based on their needs, not the needs of supposedly carrier partners who are really only interested in the spectrum so that they can increase their revenue potential. IF you achieve this, then I might ease up on the ranting.
But who am I other than….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet DID NOT get the bids it was looking for? FirstNet blames FAR rules for its inability to create excitement?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed how quite it has been with FirstNet? Is it anticipation or habitual resignation? The fact is FirstNet put out its RFP with all the fanfare of bromidic party with a bunch of friends you never really got along with. How do you celebrate the coming-out party when everyone has a bitter taste in their own minds? It’s unfortunate that FirstNet has had to play the overachieving nerd boasting about a party that nobody wants to go too. How to make the best of a situation you inherited?
It may be just me, but history demonstrates that had FirstNet gotten the responses and the solution they desired, a solution that would quall the masses, FirstNet would have been singing from the desktop. Instead all we get is the pulling back into the blame-game of having to play by rules that were forced upon them all while promoting the tolerance of a solution that fails to meet all the primary needs of coverage, interoperability, security, cost and self-sustainment.
“FirstNet decided to follow Federal procurement regulations for this RFP.  We did so because it sets an established, proven process for the conduct of complex procurements like this one. It also ensures that the proposal and evaluation process is fair and competitive, and provides a level playing field for all potential offerors.  The rules restrict our ability to publicly discuss source selection information during the evaluation phase.  This applies to topics such as the number of proposals and who submitted them, among other things.  Although we are an open, stakeholder driven organization, this is the only way to ensure the integrity of the procurement process.” (CEO, Mike Poth FirstNet)
The only reason FirstNet has chosen to play by the FAR rules, is because of the lack of transparency from the inaugural team over seeing the creation of FirstNet. Had there not been the insider trading, and clouded limpidity of forward progress, we would not be having this conversation today. Greed for the ability to act without an inclusive solution of the States, and Public Safety, cost FirstNet dearly. For the newly appointed CEO to fall back and proclaim that a carrier solution is the only path forward, set the course of Federal Oversight bolstered the acknowledgment that FirstNet’s duplicity was factual as based on the DOJ and the DOI investigations following the accusations from a sitting board member about the original “400-page plan”. In fact, these astonishing steps were the prelude and cornerstone to how FirstNet has to conduct business today.
The truth to the matter is the complex oversight, now required by congress, has put chains on FirstNet, so much so that the term “independent agency” has been successfully mooted to a non-consequential entity within the Federal Government who is required to follow Federal Acquisiton Requirements – counter to the original plan.  By squashing FirstNet’s “independence” has effectively curtailed its creativity to the point of controversial lameness, so much so that I pity anyone, let alone the current staff, who has to try and make this ship sail – this ship hit its iceberg a long time ago. Do we keep the course and start shoveling out the water of a huge sinking cruise ship; or do we seize the day and set a course with the lifeboats?  
By stating that FirstNet must follow the FAR requirements, only outlines that the party has been officially declared boring and non-receptive to what the overall Public Safety market needs – essentially a party with a bunch of nerds, no women, and no booze. The Federal Government has taken control of FirstNet and has officially cut the balls off of FirstNet’s plan and any hope of a success.
“The rules restrict our ability to publicly discuss source selection information during the evaluation phase.  This applies to topics such as the number of proposals and who submitted them, among other things.” (CEO Mike Poth)
Think of it this way, had FirstNet gotten the responses it was hoping for, I can guarantee you that nobody within FirstNet would be hiding behind rules enforced upon them. The excitement of getting solutions that meet the clients (Public Safety’s) needs, and then-some, would be overwhelming to the point that the official term would be “transparency” for all to see. What federal representative do you know would throttle such a success with their own constituents? Career politicians are made with such announcements. After all, the State of New Hampshire put out its RFP asking for Opt-Out Public Private Partnerships and they received 5 bids — you would have thought they through a grenade in FirstNet’s backyard with all the publicity they received. The market was set a fire following their successful bid. Why haven’t we heard anything from FirstNet on its success? Probably because it doesn’t exist?
In the end, my bet is that FirstNet did not get what it really wanted. After all, even if FirstNet’s RFP was a big success, the overall business plan, a “top-down” federal subscriber solution, was never going to succeed anyway. Take it from someone who knows how to build these broadband solutions, the best path forward is allowing the States to Opt-Out while at the same time allowing FirstNet to implement a standards approach for technical and financially accountable frameworks that the States can use and that are inclusive of a fair and accountable support mechanism for FirstNet nationally. As I’ve stating from the very beginning, the only viable solution is a Bottom-Up Public Private Partnership model based on the State, Public Safety prioritization, and local broadband needs.
But what do I know, I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

Is FirstNet a Lame Duck, Cooked Duck, or Politically Ideological?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment

I’m attending the Broadband Summit here in the District of Columbia. While attending I noticed a few themes that struck me. One theme is the lack of States attending and second the overall summation of those States that did attend were very vocal about the need of funding and resources.

The lack of attendance of State representation can demonstrate a few things; lack of interest, lack of confidence, or the idea that a change is coming. My gut feeling is that the State’s are seeing a mixture of all the above, thus the low attendance. Does this mean that FirstNet has been cast into the pit of Lame Ducks? Me personally I love the taste of Duck, but that’s another story. What should FirstNet take from this notion? How should it proceed?

There are a couple of routes FirstNet could choose in moving forward; the first being the realization that they need to play ball with the Opt-Out scenarios, or, stand and fight against the flow of common sense. Being that the FirstNet leadership has been at this since 2012, my gut feeling is they are dedicated to their cause and will not be responsive to any other solution other than their own. This means the lines are being drawn and ultimately, if left in the hands of government action, will be partisan politics. What really confuses me is the ideology approach to coming to a similar solution.

If the continuance of FirstNet hinges on an ideological approach to deploying FirstNet, then FirstNet is not only a Lame Duck, but a Cooked Duck as well. Why would you risk not cooperating, being relentless on your own solution,  only making the entire FirstNet “Opt-In” solution undesirable? I sat with one of those States and I was quite surprised that the decision to Opt-In was already made. I can understand the notion to commit to a business solution if you fully understood all the available options, but in this case that analysis was not done, which leads me to believe it is being done purely along political lines. I base this on an overly simplistic view of how FirstNet will come in, pay for everything, and that all the State has to do is pay to use their own network based on an availability payment taken from the taxpayers of the State. If I were a State Governor then this would raise some major red flags.

Essentially, if you go through the steps associated with such a plan, you will quickly start to notice that the “Opt-In” solution actually goes counter to the Law as it’s written. Does that mean they are breaking the law? How do you gain any kind of tax relief, job creation, or middle class tax relief by actually charging more taxes; giving State jobs away to the Federal Government; and not reaping the benefits of revenue creation in using your own network to help ease the middle class (and pay for Public Safety)? Maybe it’s just me, but that just doesn’t make any sense…unless it were an ideological point of view….or just naive. My guess is the ideological viewpoint is the basis for such a stand. If it is, then there is little chance of changing those minds. Those that deal in such actions are already sold and have already convinced themselves to what is right and what is wrong and anything you do or say will not change their minds. Unfortunately, the only people that will suffer from such ideological stances will be Public Safety and the citizen. Then again I’m just an old telecom guy that has been building networks for 30 years – not an attorney.

Another viewpoint is that the allocation of spectrum, and the creation of the Public Safety Broadband Network, was all just pork and actually has nothing to do with the Act itself. But the law is the law and it is explicit of its use of the Public Safety Broadband Network and its inclusion in the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012”. Does this mean anything, well no, especially if you are being ideological and partisan in your approach. In some minds the entire FirstNet solution is a pure political play of controlling a large – profitable – broadband solution, keeping their own measly job, and pushing their own agenda. In short, it’s all about money and pushing ones agenda.

Let’s forget about all the conspiracy theories and just focus on the political stance. Now I’m no rocket scientist, but you can google the definition of the political leaning States. From what I can analyze there’s a solid contingency of 35 Red States, roughly 13 Purple States (Swing States), leaving roughly 2 solid Blue States. Now if I’m a betting man, my gut would tell me that the risk associated with the success of an “Opt-In” buy-in is far from being realistic. Even if all the Purple States went Opt-In, plus you added the 6 territories, you still don’t even reach half the States. FirstNet will need upwards of 90% of the States to Opt-In to have any chance to be successful. Don’t know about you, but those are some steep odds, steep enough that I would never bet on, but I don’t gamble – especially with taxpayer money – but some do. So do you still put all your money on a federal FirstNet centralized nationwide solution? Or do you bet on what you can do within your own State’s borders? Possible something you actually have some say in and have more influential control?

As I’ve stated in the past, it’s not about the technology, or even who runs your solution, it’s all about what is best for Public Safety, Americans and the State — think locally, support locally, control locally and execute locally. FirstNet still has a role, just not the way they think they do.

But whom am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet – States of denial?

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Is it just me, or do we all sense a slowdown in FirstNet? Not hearing a lot from any of the key players and not sensing any real support from the market – except Rivada – for the proposal responses. There is one thing I am hearing though and that is a lot of rumblings within the States to Opt-Out. In the end is a State really Opting-Out of anything….no not really. The only real difference is that a State will take control of its own solution and its own future. How many of us out there really expect FirstNet to come in with a great solution, a solution that will replace an existing carrier contract, a solution that will be self-funded, self-sustaining, truly hardened and not demonstrate a hint of distrust? Who really thinks the Federal Government will come in to your State and actually work for the benefit of your constituents, especially when there is 56 of you – 50 States and 6 Territories?
There is no possible way a FirstNet solution will be totally void of taxpayer funding and prioritized towards Public Safety priority without some concessions. Any solution outside of the P3 I have been boasting about will in fact break the law – how do I know this – because I specifically designed the P3 model based on the law. As I have stated in the past there are too many variables out there that can contribute to a disaster. In fact, if you could picture Red Square in China on a revolutionary holiday entrenched with all the Red Flags – FirstNet would still dwarf its celebrations in Red Flags of distress.
Forget about the technical side of FirstNet and all its glory of LTE and shared services, just think about the governance headaches, the political follies, the campaign redirect, and the political funding cuts, plus the notion that there are States who just don’t trust the Federal Government to do anything. Has anyone tried to ask the question how many of these States that Opt-Out potentially ruin FirstNet’s plans before it even starts? I did and my figure is roughly 5 average size States or 1 large State and three smaller ones. Even if FirstNet were to setup and award its Program Management Team to build out nationally, given the amount of Opt-Out States will only mean that FirstNet picked the PM Team for the State still leaving the State to responsibility to complete the task. What is different than the State just picking its own team do to the same work anyway?
Now I understand FirstNet put out an RFP asking for any and all solutions that FirstNet should consider in addressing its objectives based RFP. Which is a good thing. Unfortunately, the market lost confidence in FirstNet following all the accusations of insider trading and monopolization of the spectrum. Show me one State that has complete trust in FirstNet to completely deliver what is says it will deliver. In a past article I wrote about the honor that needs to be restored and the trust that needs to be rebuilt with the community — before FirstNet can expect a viable response. I’m afraid that time has passed and now FirstNet’s only real option is to hope the States can deliver the solution themselves and will consider FirstNet’s contributions.
As I said in the past, FirstNet should be focusing on a business plan that can accommodate for all the Opt-Outs and still succeed. I gave my own solution for that issue some time ago, in short, FirstNet would just be an equity partner in the P3 established by the State that Opts-Out. FirstNet will be the standards organization and centralized control center in connecting the national layer solution. Do we actually think a centralized FirstNet organization is going to build an entire broadband network that is twice the size of AT&T and Verizon combined from the top down; during a change of administration; and following the disasters of the Healthcare Act, websites and many others? Take a sip from the commonsense cup and focus on your local needs. You know you can do better than what a top-down federal agency can do for you. Just the sheer size of the programs; the timelines to getting things accomplished; the pride for the State to accomplish it; and the personability of a local touch; and the local ability to address local concerns cannot come from an organization that resides in another State or in the District of Columbia. Carpe Diem!
But what do I know I’m….
Just some guy and a blog….

FirstNet — State Governors you have been given an entire broadband solution covering your entire State on a Silver Platter — Carpe Diem!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
So it has come down to decision time for the State Governors; do you start the process of analyzing the “Opt-Out” solution; or do you just sit and wait for FirstNet? Being that the alternative is to do the Ostrich thing and just stick your head in the sand and then hope everything goes your way. I would say now is the time to take charge and do the required work.
For a State to truly analyze its Opt-Out solution it needs to evaluate a certain amount of things first; one is the business model it will use; what is the revenue forecast; what products will you sell; how many users can you expect; what is the cost to design and build. If you look at this from the top down you will see that all we are defining at this stage is a new broadband company. After all you wouldn’t just invest your money into a new company without doing some due diligence first – this is no different.
To accommodate a thorough analysis of the opportunity we need time and money. The time is essentially today until FirstNet presents its model (supposedly November per FirstNet) plus 90 days to decide. That doesn’t give you much time to define out a new broadband company that meets your needs. Starting today that’s seven months until FirstNet’s presentation and three more months for you to make a decision. The good thing is you still have time to get it done. A good example, or case study, of what is needed is the New HampshireRFP to Opt-Out. Essentially all the RFP has asked for, is a business model it can use to help the Governor make his/her call on Opt-Out or Opt-in – that’s really all you need.
To award such an RFP will take a month or two to solicit bids; 2 weeks to award; and NTP immediately; leaving you 7 months (including 90-day decision) to get the analysis completed. This analysis should be competed with a non-biased partner that is already courting financial investors. You have to remember, it’s not about the technology – it’s all about setting up the deal. Which leads us to the next step, that being money.
How do you pay for such an endeavor?  One way to look at this is based on value. What are you bringing to the table to incentivize private investment to fund your design, build solution? What stake of ownership will you get out of the opportunity? In order to find the answers to these questions, the State needs to make its own upfront investment to pay for the analysis. But, where does the funding come from?
The fact is the State doesn’t need to pay for the analysis out of State taxpaying dollars, rather it already has grants available for the purpose; BTOP, USF, Broadband America and the NTIA grant to help the State DB their solution. What will the analysis phase cost?
With a 10-14 person crew, and covering the entire analysis phase, plus the additional approval stage with the NTIA, and the application for use of the D-Block spectrum, we are talking in the ballpark of $10-$12 Million. BTOP grant allocations alone are $154 Million per State; USF is roughly $10-$100 Million (per State) and the FirstNet-NTIA Grant (following approval of your plan) will be in the ballpark of $33-$130 Million (per State) – don’t forget FHA, DOE and other federal Grants out there to help, i.e. ARRA, etc. Did you know that the Federal Highway Administration allocates more than 10% of its grant programs, to fund highways, is dedicated to IT and communications? Remember, the State, if using the P3 model I have presented, doesn’t have to pay for the DBOM of the solution, nor does it have to pay for its long-term operations – private investment will take care of that. That’s not bad for a Billion-dollar broadband solution covering your entire State; hardened to your specifications; puts First Responders as Priority 1; interoperable with FirstNet; and does not need any taxpayer money to help fund it. Where do I signup? The biggest cost item for such a solution would normally be the price for the spectrum, but even that comes for free (almost free).
The issue is not whether or not you need to Opt-Out, or Opt-In, it’s a matter of why haven’t you acted already. If the use of this spectrum, the availability of long-term revenue, and the diversified nature of risk falling on someone else, is not a great recipe for your success, then I don’t know what is. What’s the definition of Silver Platter? Who else will ever sit in such an opportune position as you? Just take it and move on, your entire State is counting on you to do whats right! But, you can’t get there from here unless you get your analysis done upfront…. what are you waiting for? Get your RFP out to the market asking for a business model for the State’s potential Opt-Out decision. But who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

Is FirstNet pulling a fast one on the States? States don’t be fooled — you need to start putting together your comparable "Opt-Out" decision for your Governor!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
There is a lot to understand about the upfront process that a State must perform before FirstNet presents its plan – in November! You should note that FirstNet isn’t making it any easier for the States to “Opt-Out”. Pushing their schedule forward to come up with a solution that will be presented in November is not done by mistake – it’s done by design. FirstNet knows the State will have to accommodate a lot of information before a Governor can make a decision, and that the 90-day period following FirstNet’s presentation to the Governor is way too short for such a decision, thus their pushing the timeline so expeditiously. It’s not to FirstNet’s advantage that the Governor get a competing bid.

“September 30, 2016 for consideration in State plans.  During the meeting, participants were reminded that if a State Governor does not make a decision to opt in or out during the 90-day period following the finalization of the State Plans, FirstNet will move forward with implementing the network deployment in that State.” (ref: National Law Review Article)
If a State wants to really investigate its “Opt-Out” solution against the “Opt-In” solution, then it needs to get the ball rolling. That ball needs to start with a good conceptual understanding of how their P3 (Public Private Partnership) will be put together; which equity players are interested; what is the capability of your EPC (Engineer, Procure and Construct) contractor; and what technical roadmaps will be established. If you go by FirstNet’s rules that means a State only has 10-11 months to put together a viable “Opt-Out” solution to compare against FirstNet’s plan.
Once you have your P3 strategized, and your team selected that you want to move forward with, then you can start to focus on deliverables. Using your selected EPC (this is the entity that is really putting the team together) the State will need to fund the Analysis stage. The Analysis Stage is the phase where we formulate package deliverables that will be utilized for the Governor and the follow on phases of work. These deliverables will be required for the Governor to make a sound call on either “Opt-Out” or “Opt-In”. Some of the deliverables, and probably the most important, will be the Revenue Projections and Product Forecast; Market Analysis; a resulting schedule for rollout using the marketing material and the projected revenue; and the overall design solution based on the projections and requirements laid out.
When the Governor makes the “Opt-Out’ decision, which I’m only going to discuss because it’s the only real option that makes any sense, it becomes the catalyst for the P3 to really start engaging with Private Investors to fund the DBOM (Design, Build, Operate and Maintain) solution for the State. Most importantly outlining the Revenue Projections and the Product Portfolios for the newly established broadband company within the State. Nobody is going to invest without knowing what the market is, how much revenue they will get back, and over how much time. At the same time the EPC contractor will start the Approval stage for the State with the NTIA. Once the approval is granted, then the EPC will help the State apply for its grant[1]from the NTIA to help build its solution (you should note that in the “Opt-In” scenario the State actually has to help fund the FirstNet’s build using the State tax-base[2]). Simultaneously the EPC will also file for the use of the spectrum for the State with the FCC.
Once the Approval is granted, not the Grant approval, the P3 consortium will execute under a new broadband company for the State, with the State being part owner, thus acquiring revenue to re-inject its equitable proceeds back into the State’s Public Safety needs. You should note that the law does not say anything about the State not putting its share towards Public Safety. The law only states that “FirstNet” has to re-invest any money it brings in – the law says nothing about the State. But to be fair I would encourage any revenue the State makes through its P3 be re-invested back into First Responders.
So in short, if the State Governor decides to “Opt-In”, then it will be facing the issue of helping to fund FirstNet’s plan. If the Governor decides to “Opt-Out”, then the State would get funding from the NTIA (part of the $7 Billion that FirstNet got from the sale of other spectrum assets). That’s a hard decision to be made? What would you do with that Grant?
There are many possible scenarios on what to do with the Grant money, but one thing is for sure, the funding has to be used for the DBOM of the State’s Public Safety Broadband Network.
As an example, once the Grant is approved, those funds would go to help the State design-build its interoperable solution. The injection of the cash could be in the way of an availability payment to cover Priority 1 First Responder using the access of the new broadband company; or it could be priced equity shares within the NewCo for the State to increase its share of ownership, thus more revenue. There are many ways we can fry up this fish.
The important thing to remember out of all of this — if the Governor wants to have apples-to-apples comparison between “Opt-Out” versus “Opt-In”, then it needs to start developing this strategy quickly. You don’t want to be left behind when all the States start crashing the party to do the same thing.
Here is a flow of what seems to be working:
  • 1     RFP
    • State puts out RFP asking for a P3 solution (just like New Hampshire did)
    • State picks its solution team

  • 2    Development
    • State funds the 10-11 months
    • EPC puts together all the packages for the State Governor to make a decision.

  • 3  Approval
    • Governor makes decision to “Opt-Out”
    • State seeks approval from the NTIA (using the same EPC to do the footwork).
    • Plan approved

  • 4    Apply
    • Once approval is granted then EPC and the State apply for the Grant from the NTIA.
    • The EPC helps the State apply for its spectrum usage from the FCC.

  • 5   Execute
    • The EPC then goes to work for the P3 entity created (funded by the P3 entity)
    • The investors are aligned (including the State)
    • Funding is put in place
    • Construction begins


But what do I know I’m…

Just some guy and a blog…

[1]HR 3620 Section 6302 (C) (iii) APPROVAL — If the Commission (FCC) approves a plan under this subparagraph, the State— (I) may apply to the NTIA for a grant to construct the radio access network within the State…

[2]HR 3620 Section 6302 (e) STATE NETWORK —(1) NOTICE — Upon the completion of the request for proposal process conducted by the First Responder Network Authority for the construction, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the nationwide public safety broadband network, the First Responder Network Authority shall provide to the Governor of each State, or his designee—(A) notice of the completion of the request for proposal process (B) details of the proposed plan for build out of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network in such State; and (C) the funding level for the State as determined by the NTIA.

FirstNet takes on the State Governors! Get your popcorn here!

/ drmikemyers / Leave a comment
Just read Donny Jackson’s article entitled “Here are somenotes about FirstNet that you may not have known before” (April, 2016) There was an interesting take on what he wrote in the article about revenue.
“Opt-out states may not get revenue from federal subscribers in their jurisdiction. A state or territory that chooses the opt-out alternative will be responsible for building and operating the RAN within its borders, but those RAN costs presumably will be offset by revenues generated by public-safety and commercial subscribers within its jurisdiction.”
“For instance, FirstNet already is talking with federal agencies about subscribing to the network. With offices throughout the country, these federal agencies could subscribe to FirstNet and its contractor to receive nationwide broadband coverage.” (TJ Kennedy)
I may be mistaken, but to me this sounds like some competitive positioning. Is FirstNet starting to take an offensive posture with regards to State Opt-Outs? TJ’s statement about selling “nationwide coverage” to federal agencies may in fact be a false advertisement if you ask me. If a State decides to Opt-Out, then that would make the FirstNet statement of an all inclusive nationwide coverage a false narrative. The fact is the law states that a State can sell revenue based services through its own Public Private Partnership (P3).
HR3630 Section 6302 (g)
PROHIBITION
IN GENERAL —A State that chooses to build its own radio access network shall not provide commercial service to consumers or offer wholesale leasing capacity of the network within the State except directly through public-private partnerships for construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the network within the State.
In the end, what we are talking about is that a State actually will not be selling anything in regards to any type of broadband service, if they are using the P3 model I am proposing, the only entity that will be selling broadband services will be the privately based entity that is created by the P3. The State will just be a minority shareholder in that company, mainly for the purposes of ensuring Public Safety and First Responder prioritizations.
For TJ to come out and state that they will be talking to the same customers as a given Opt-Out State would, only illustrates the fact that they are starting to understand that they need to start envisioning their own SWOT analysis to remain competitive. Once again, from what I can tell, FirstNet still believes that it is a national carrier, or is striving to be a national carrier, not an oversight organization to help insure the Public Safety Broadband Network gets built for Public Safety. Nowhere in the law does it say anything about FirstNet being a national carrier. IN fact it states just the opposite. But, lets go along with the idea.

So if FirstNet is already talking with some federal agencies and is selling “nationwide coverage” as a product, then they will be open to legal action as it is in fact trying to act like a privatized commercial entity. I can side with the idea that we do need one entity liaison the federal contracts with any given State P3, or FirstNet itself, but that entity should not be FirstNet. FirstNet doesn’t have any jurisdiction to act in that capacity, let alone try to compete as a commercial entity. There is one entity that does have the ability to work in that regard…hello GSA. Now don’t get all excited, most federal entities, outside of GSA themselves, think they can do a better job, but the fact is putting together a direct deal with a State, States, or FirstNet itself, isn’t rocket science. The agency will setup a yearly SLA for service with auto-renewal clause. Depending on what priority group the federal entity falls within, will dictate its SLA agreement for prioritization, while at the same time ensuring its untethered access to statewide, regionwide, and nationwide coverage.  Why does FirstNet think it needs to control the relationship between a federal agency and a State?  How the network is paid for is based on the same science the federal agencies use today when negotiating broadband services from carriers; only in this instance they will have priority and complete coverage. FirstNet may be able to assist with guidance on how the services should be contracted, but only from the standpoint of interoperability and approved vendor solutions.

If FirstNet wants to be out front of the pack, and offer some great advantages, then it really needs to sell itself like a private entity…. good luck with that (see my recent article about DOC and FirstNet). While FirstNet is out there trying to better itself over an Opt-Out State, the opportunity to join the State, and have its own shareholder position, gets further behind and more difficult to correct later on. All they will do is piss off the State Governors, thus losing their ability to self-fund and self-sustain. FirstNet needs the States more than the States need FirstNet.
There is a strong political tie with a majority of the red leaning States. If the nationwide FirstNet model becomes caustic and unapproachable due to political infighting, then FirstNet needs to understand that it only takes 3-4 States opting out to kill their aspirations. I can assure you that the political ties will be unbeatable if FirstNet tries to strong-arm the State Governors, ultimately putting the nail in the coffin for FirstNet’s plans. In the end, it still does not impact the State’s right to monetize the use of the spectrum for the betterment of its Public’s Safety and First Responder resources. And, it still does not keep the State from executing its own P3 to build its own piece of the bigger broadband network.
But hey I’m….
Just some guy and a blog…..
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.