Let’s start this week with the upcoming (Feb 2, 2016) U.S. House of Representatives, Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology sub-committee hearing to update committee members on FirstNet’s progress and a status report on the Department of Interior’s RFP on behalf of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which was issued on January 14 (FirstNet Partner RFP). This should be a fairly standard House hearing in that the reports are all pre-scripted, and there will probably not be many questions asked. The result should be a clean bill of health for FirstNet because of the progress it has made.

However, rumor has it that several unidentified network operators have complained to committee members that because FirstNet will lease its excess spectrum it could end up competing with existing network operators. My answer to that is if this is a concern, step up and submit a proposal. The industry loves rumors and bits of information dangled out there for anyone to consume and take to the next level. This is certainly the case when it comes to speculation as to which companies will respond to the RFP.

We know AT&T probably will because it has publically said so. Many in the investment community seem to believe Verizon is already the chosen one because its spectrum is adjacent to FirstNet’s. But within Verizon itself and others on the outside maintain they are not interested in FirstNet as a partner. Rivada has written an op-ed saying we should not preclude non-network operators from stepping up and submitting an RFP, and rumors continue to swirl that companies such as Northrup-Grumman are putting together a response based on a number of partners. Then there are the wild guesses about a foreign network operator or foreign large company swooping in to build the network and establish its presence in the U. S. market. Sprint says it will not respond, and the only peeps out of T-Mobile have been some quotes in a news article about the RFP being problematic.

FirstNet is accepting written questions between now and February 12, 2016. We were told that if we asked questions as we went along they would be answered in a sequential manner, but so far I have not seen any responses to any of the questions already asked. Then there is the pre-proposal industry day in early March (half-day in reality). Anyone who thinks reviewing the questions and/or attending the industry day will shed light on more of those interested in bidding are probably mistaken since I believe most interested entities are busy working behind the scenes rather than in the public eye. It will be interesting to see how FirstNet handles the Capability Statements that are also due in March. If they become public (I don’t believe they should), we should have a better idea of who is interested in the RFP, but that does not mean they will actually submit a final RFP response. So Congress is busy looking for an update, FirstNet is busy with continued outreach and hopefully responding to RFP questions, and an unknown number of companies and consortiums of companies are busy trying to figure out if this is a true opportunity or a sinkhole for $billions of dollars with an extended time period until there is a Return on Investment (ROI). Still, I am encouraged at all the buzz around the RFP and hope it will translate into multiple qualified bids. I don’t think the Public Safety community will be best served if only one bidder shows up and FirstNet has no choices. Time will tell, meanwhile I will continue to watch and monitor the buzz. Have a great weekend! Andy

Want to keep track of FirstNet’s progress? Here are some key dates, milestones to remember – Urgent Communications via Google Alerts Jan 28 14:15 … build and operate a nationwide public-safety broadband network during the … Continue reading →

When FirstNet released the final RFP it allowed for questions to be asked until February 12, 2016. This is a great opportunity for prospective bidders and their partners to gain a level of clarification. However, to submit a question you must use a FirstNet form that does provide a method for asking the question, but does not allow for putting the question into context. In some cases the context is as important as the question. While a question may seem arbitrary or unwarranted, if it is preceded by a statement containing pertinent information there can be a better understanding of the rationale for asking it, thus a more appropriate answer can be forthcoming.

My example is the requirement within the RFP that the successful bidder (partner) have 50% of the Public Safety device connection target by 24 months after the contract award and 100% by 48 months after or face large monetary penalties. I presume these requirements are in the RFP to preclude a partner from building the network and then not trying in earnest to get the first responder community to use it, so the partner has more access to the spectrum. In this case, both the timeline for these requirements and the percentages are not, in my estimation, achievable by any company, even the four largest wireless network operators. Apparently the vendor is supposed to provide the target numbers, but FirstNet says there are “between 3 and 12 million first responders.” Is this target then tied to 50% of 3 million or 50% of 12 million (a very high and questionable number). I have to ask whether this 12 million is sworn personnel only or if it includes all of the civilians.

The RFP’s definition of a Public Safety user is a “User of the NPSBN that provides public safety services.” Next, I believe network usage will expand from the top down in organizations. That is, the initial FirstNet customers will be chiefs and line officers who will try out the network for command and control and see how it works and whether it provides the same level (or better) coverage they currently experience with one of the commercial networks. Over time, as the network matures and more devices that are designed for field use come on the market, network usage might spread to an entire department. My biggest concern is that network operators with networks in place and already serving the Public Safety community will compete with FirstNet if they are not the successful bidder.”

The biggest issue here is that according to the law, there is no requirement that a Public Safety agency make use of FirstNet. Network operators can move their pricing anywhere they want. Public Safety is a small but prestigious portion of their total user population and two of the networks already offer a form of priority access to the first responder community. Even though it does not include full, ruthless pre-emption, it is better than it was before. If one of the network operators becomes the FirstNet partner the other three will, of course, do what they can to keep their own installed base of Public Safety users.

My final points have to do with how much of the network can be in place by month 24 of the contract. This is not clear as it will depend on the chosen partner and could vary widely. The vendor (partner) must have devices available and establish a sales and marketing program that will provide easy access to the network and the devices. Further, it will to take time to train people in how to deal with the Public Safety community, cities, counties, and states, and some of the buying cycles could be extended because of having to wait for the following year’s budget for funds. I would rate the likelihood of ANY potential vendor/partner being able to meet the percentage of use in the time periods allocated as slim to none. That means as part of the RFP decision the bidder will have to accept the fact that they will be penalized a lot of money, or it means FirstNet will have to make changes to sections that address this issue.

Either way, as you can see, the context of the question asked is as important as the question itself, because it could include items FirstNet may not have thought through completely. FirstNet’s stated goal with the RFP is to attract a number of qualified bids from potential partners, and it has done a pretty good job of changing the RFP to reflect that interest. Even so, there are still areas of the documents such as this that could push the fence sitters over the other side into the no response column. Have a Great Weekend! Andy Continue reading →