CORRECTION: NEW TIME/DATE: FirstNet Board announces special meeting, Tuesday, March 28, 9 a.m.

The date has changed for the special meeting of the FirstNet Board next week. FirstNet’s Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) members are invited to listen. Please see the teleconference information below.
Date/time NEW: Tuesday, March 28, 9 a.m. ET.

Note: The time and date listed above are subject to change.  Please refer to FirstNet’s website at for the most up-to-date information.

Teleconference Members of the public may join the meeting in “listen-only” mode by dialing toll free1-877-960-9067 and using passcode 2095167#.
Questions Please contact Kenzie Capece or reply to this email.


Andy Seybold’s Public Safety Advocate, March 23, 2017

Public Safety Advocate: Opting In or Out?
Since the U.S. Federal Claims Court it has made the following statement via Business Wire: “Rivada Networks announced today that it will work directly with the states and territories that may want to exercise their right to opt-out of FirstNet’s federal solution.” Further into the press release it also stated, “FirstNet has made its choice. Now it is time for states to make theirs. Those that stand by idly will be forced into a federal solution that may or may not suit their needs or budgets. We look forward to working with the states to ensure that they receive a network equal to the promise made to public safety when FirstNet was created.”

Even during the period when the court had the Rivada ruling under consideration, Rivada has continued on its quest to convince states to opt out. Rivada has assembled an interesting assortment of folks to assist in its pursuit of opt-out states. It starts with Karl Rove, a well-known member of the Bush administration who is reportedly visiting most if not all of the states led by a Republican governor. This effort is augmented by others including Chris Moore who retired as a Police Chief from San Jose, Calif. Since the court has ruled in favor of the government and FirstNet, Rivada is redoubling its efforts to convince states to opt out in favor of Rivada’s offering.

Rivada has decided to cast the opt-in decision as one in which the state is at the mercy of the federal government and may not end up with a Public Safety system that suits its needs. On the other side, I question whether a company that is not a network operator and to my knowledge operates few if any cellular networks, is a viable alternative for the states to consider. As my readers know, I recommend what I consider to be an opt-in-plus approach. The plus is made up of further negotiations with the winning bidder and FirstNet that would go beyond the opt-in state plan and provide a methodology for the state and jurisdictions within the state to add value to the network over time.

In the meantime, before the contract is officially awarded, outside pressure is being brought to bear on the states. I thought it might be a worthwhile endeavor to suggest some questions I believe should be asked by each state, territory, and tribal nation. It is only fair to the governor of each state to have all of the information available to make an intelligent decision. When I say intelligent decision, I do not mean one that fits with the party affiliation of the governor or his/her staff, I mean the decision that is best for the Public Safety agencies within the state going forward. Below are a number of questions I would ask or have my FirstNet team ask if I were the governor of a state. I have categorized them by subject matter for ease of this discussion. Continue reading

Andy Seybold’s Public Safety Advocate, March 18, 2017

FirstNet Back on Track (?)  The Public Safety community, FirstNet, and AT&T are all pleased that the U.S. Federal Claims judge ruled against Rivada. The court denied Rivada’s contention that it was wrongfully excluded from being moved into the final competitive range of the process. The judge also granted additional motions to both the U.S. Department of Justice and AT&T but these motions have not been released and may not be since many of the proceedings have been sealed.

Obviously, there were different reactions to the news. Mike Poth, CEO of FirstNet, issued a press release in which he stated, “We are pleased with the Court’s decision. This is a positive development for FirstNet and the public safety community. FirstNet intends to move expeditiously to finalize the contract for the nationwide public safety broadband network.” The statement received from Rivada, the loser in the court decision, was a tweet that stated, “U.S. Court of Fed Claims motion denied. Considering appeal & are ramping up with States that want option to exercise opt-out right.” I am sure Rivada Mercury will make additional statements about the ruling but at the moment it appears as though FirstNet will move quickly forward with AT&T, the only bidder rumored to have made it to the final stage of the RFP selection process and that also filed in support of the federal government’s activities to defend the RFP bidder selection process.

Where do we go from here? I believe that if at all possible FirstNet will make an award to the final bidder in a matter of weeks if not days, and that will start the six-month phase one clock ticking. At the end of this phase of the project, the FirstNet Partner has to provide the states with the plans it and FirstNet will have developed for providing coverage to each state. The clock will then start for the states to evaluate the proposal and decide they will opt into or out of the FirstNet plan. Opting in will mean the FirstNet Partner will build out the network in that state. Opting out will mean the state will have to begin a fairly tedious process of convincing the FCC its state plan is fully compatible with the FirstNet network, then dealing with the NTIA to try to secure a grant to help defray the cost of its build-out, and finally negotiating a spectrum lease with FirstNet.

This is where it gets interesting. FirstNet, the potential partner, and many others have weighed in about a state opting in or out. Regular readers of my columns know I am an opt-in proponent because I believe opting in, but negotiating a way to add onto the network, is the best of both worlds. It allows the FirstNet Partner to build out in a state and then enables them to work together toward the goal of increasing coverage where needed over time. There are multiple ways these increases can be funded as I am sure we will all soon discover. If a state opts out it will get what is promised by the opt-out contractor, probably without a provision to add to the initial coverage.

Some states have supposedly been promised they will be able to use the secondary income from the network for whatever the state wants to do with the reported major “windfall.” The first problem with this is that all of this secondary revenue except for funds needed to maintain the state’s portion of the FirstNet network must be turned over to FirstNet. The second is that many of the states that have been promised big paydays will find that if they opt out and choose a vendor other than the FirstNet Partner the promised payday will either not come at all or be a long time coming.

One of the states that has already chosen Rivada as its opt-out partner if it chooses to opt-out is interesting in that our research shows there is not a single county within this state that can generate sufficient Public Safety revenue or any secondary spectrum revenue to support a network. Therefore, depending on how the contract between the state and Rivada is written, the state could be on the hook for the shortfall year after year. While this state is the only one so far that has awarded a contract IF it decides to opt out, several other states share the same dismal outlook for generating enough revenue to pay for the build-out, operation, and network upgrades over a 30-year period. Continue reading

FCC Seeks Input of Airborne Use of 700 MHz

March 15, 2017–The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and International Bureau are inviting comment on two proposals for coordinating 700 megahertz airborne operations for narrow band channels along the U.S.-Canada border.  “One proposal would allow the two countries to share the eight channels that the U.S. designated for airborne use,” the bureaus explained in a public notice released today in PS docket 13-87.  The other would require “certain terrestrial incumbents in the United States, within given distances from the border, … to relocate from Canada’s air-ground channels to avoid mutual interference,” they said.  Comments are due May 1 and replies are due May 22.

Andy Seybold’s Public Safety Advocate, March 9, 2017

 While We Wait for FirstNet Revision 2.  A few years ago I wrote about how Public Safety could begin to prepare for the addition of FirstNet to its communications capabilities. Since then we have seen more delays and have learned more about what the first responder community wants and needs as well as what many states are thinking about the FirstNet deployment.

On March 3, 2017, the U.S. Federal Court heard oral arguments from both sides of the case. FirstNet was represented by federal attorneys assigned to the case and I am sure Rivada Mercury showed up with a sizable contingent as well. According to an article in Urgent Communications , Rivada Mercury says it expects a ruling within the next two weeks. There is little information available on what went on in the closed hearing so I am hopeful Rivada’s estimate on the timing is correct. It still seems like yet another long wait.

I will preface this next section with the disclaimer that I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one, but I am both puzzled and troubled that I am hearing from people I know and trust within a number of states and who will remain as “sources” that a big-name member of a past President’s administration has been visiting with governors of the same party and trying to convince them to opt out of FirstNet. It is merely speculation on my part, but I believe this person is working on behalf of Rivada Mercury. It seems inappropriate to me that this activity is occurring during the time the RFP process is being challenged in Federal Court by the same company. Continue reading

Wi-Fi Alliance Report Predicts Spectrum Need

March 1, 2017–Regions will likely need to add between 500 megahertz and 1 gigahertz of additional spectrum to the pipeline by 2025 to meet the growing data traffic demands for Wi-Fi, according to a report released by the Wi-Fi Alliance. “We have shown that, for the year 2025, the various regions are likely to need to find between 500 MHz and 1 GHz more spectrum than currently available to satisfy the Busy Hour scenario, which reflects the widely expected growth in traffic. If demand were to exceed the present Busy Hour predictions, our Upper Bound scenario suggests that an estimated maximum of between 1.3 and 1.8 GHz more spectrum than currently available may be needed,” according to the report.

“The Upper Bound scenario might occur due to unexpected adoption of novel applications or a further concentration of the busy hour traffic into fewer than the assumed four hours per day, for example. In other words, the Busy Hour scenario is the most likely to occur while the Upper Bound scenario is less likely, yet still plausible.” The report was prepared by Quotient Associates Ltd.

Courtesy TRDaily

Andy Seybold’s Public Safety Advocate, March 2, 2017

FirstNet’s March Madness: As I write the first draft of this week’s Public Safety Advocate, I realize it is March 1, the date the Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently agreed it would wait for before making an RFP award for FirstNet. The court will be holding its oral arguments session this Friday and at some point after that, unless the court requires more information, a decision regarding the issue of Rivada being excluded from the final phase of the contract review will be decided.

If it is decided in favor of the federal government, it is possible an award could be made soon after the verdict is announced. However, if Rivada indicates it might take the matter to the next level of the justice system, the feds may feel they have to, once again, wait for that to play out. It is my belief that if Rivada pursues the next legal steps, the outcome, regardless of who wins, will be dismal for Rivada. I refer you back to a previous Public Safety Advocate in which I predicted that even if Rivada wins it will lose because Public Safety, the vendor community, and many state elected officials are upset about the current delay. More delays would only make it worse.

If Rivada wins the day, there will be another delay while those reviewing the contract for the federal government will have to consider Rivada’s RFP response and weigh the response against what is believed to be the only other RFP that has been moved to the final stage. After that is completed, there should be an award soon after and, hopefully, the losing entity will respect the final outcome and not cause any more delays to the process. Continue reading