Tuesday, November 18, 2014

FirstNet - "Opt Out" means you choose a Capitalistic Approach, rather than a "Nationalistic Approach" to building the Public Safety Broadband Network.

My-oh-my the web we weave. Just read the following articled entitled “FirstNet: Is Opting Out an Option? Myriad factors and unknowns cloud the question for now” by
Adam Stone, Emergency Management on November 17, 2014.

The first thing that came to mind about this article was the lack of substance behind the negativity of an “Opt Out” solution -- a solution that actually makes sense --especially in the absence of an alternative. As has been the case since the beginning – you show me yours and I will show you mine! In fact the “Opt Out” solution has been shown, presented, answered and quantified on many occasions with many different entities, State Governors, Legislatures and Public Safety Officials, and via a Public Private Partnership model. The only reason we are talking about this topic is because the alternative is either non-existent, toxic, or secretly bestowed upon only a select few for the benefit of a “nationalistic approach” where as their solution becomes very profitable option for the Federal Government and its overreaching control of the States assets – especially if classified as a Title II Utility.

Everyone hears the topic “Opt Out”, and then “he or she” hears about the need for the State to let the Federal Government come in and fund and build the solution “for free”.  Then we are told that “we” should avoid the topic of “Opt Out” all together by allowing this nice big brother to come in and just do it for you – which reminds me of myself when I was young.

As a self-centered little juvenile I used to instruct my little brother that the small lollipop tastes so much better than the big one and that I will take on the burden of eating the gross lollipop by allowing him to eat the much tastier one. As you may have imagined I made out pretty well on the back of my brothers hard efforts in collecting Halloween candy.

What this argument fails to disclose is that, yes, the State would be responsible for its own build, but doing so with a Public Private Partnership means private investment will actually come in, pay for the entire build, its deployment and operate it long-term -- and prioritized for Public Safety! In fact the State just takes an ownership position then collects revenue from the P3 and Public Safety gets Free service. What’s so bad about this idea? After all isn’t that what the Nationalistic Approach would do, but only reap the benefits for themselves on a much more unrealistic scale? Where would they get the money to fund their solution? Who will build it for them? Who will run it? I can guarantee you it won’t be any State Governor. So, let me get this straight, I could have told my little brother that the smaller lollipop is so much better than the big one, then take ownership of all his lollipops, while at the same time still making him go out and collect all the candy? That would have sounded pretty good for such a self-centered older brother.  But, then it was just candy.

The reason is simple; the “FirstNet Nationalistic Solution” entitles this one organization, under the control of a select few, to monetize the use of the spectrum for their own vision of what the States need. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that they will take in all the profit for their own needs, while at the same still masking the need for the State to help fund it and build it anyway. Is it just me, or does something sound a little coercive and unethical about such behavior? Do we really think the Feds are going to come in and fund the deployment of FirstNet without hitting both the Federal tax base as well as the State tax base? Just because the carrier interest has been effectively undermined, doesn’t mean they have gone away. Ever hear of a wolf in sheep’s clothing? In this case we have the epitome of greed through an image of Satan dressed up in a sheepskin.

The fact is a Nationalistic Approach offers the chance for the State to supposedly get a network “for Free”, but it fails to disclose what the Feds gain in return. The return is the control and profitability of the valuable spectrum that should be specifically addressing a State’s own needs by monetizing the spectrum, and its revenue, to help improve “the State’s” economic concerns, employment outlook, and taxation relief under a State’s own control. Do we actually believe that a Nationalistic Approach to this, from the top down, will be in the best interest of the State, it’s citizens and its direct needs for Public Safety? Remember a majority of the emergency response solutions are local, so why have a Nationalistic Solution to a local problem? What part of the nationalistic approach addresses the tax relief part of the Tax Relief Act?

Having spent more than 25 years in the telecom industry, I can safely state that there has never been a network of this size and complexity created from a top-down approach. In context, if a network has to be created from the bottom-up, then why wouldn’t we start with a small design, in a select geography, that is created within the boundaries of one State? Does that not make sense – especially when it has so many efficiencies for its deployment needs, as well as its direct benefits for the State? Does this not bleed of alignment with the Middle Class Jobs Creation Act of 2012? If you’ve ever played fifty-two-card pickup, then you know you can’t pick up all fifty-two cards at once. You must pick them up one at a time.

The term “Opt Out” is not just a simple message of “a State will build its own network”. The term “Opt Out” means a State “Opts Out” of the Nationalistic Model, which will be the demise of the approach? If the Federal Government wants to declare telecommunications as a “Utility” within “Net Neutrality” then this nationalist approach would be the starting point to creating that overarching entity. Plus, as I have stated in the beginning of this article, FirstNet has no sustainable business model…it’s that simple. I have promoted a single business model, that I developed over ten years of research, which makes sense – that being The Myers Model® Public Private Partnership. 

What does Public and Private Partnership mean, as rush Limbaugh can attest, its a choice. Who do you want designing, building, operating and maintaining your Public Safety Broadband Network -- the "Public" government?; Or, you and me the "Private" people? 

In the end the question is quite simple; “Governor, are you going to select a nationalistic solution or are you going to select your capitalistic approach? One solution gives benefit to the Federal Government and the other to your State.”


But who am I am I other than….



Just some guy and a blog…




No comments:

Moto

Words to Live By: “Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… The ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.” (Steve Jobs)