FirstNet is sending out an invite (RFP). Will anyone come?

However, it appears that FirstNet is placing a value on this spectrum based on the over-inflated prices paid for spectrum in the AWS-3 auction. During the time the final RFP is on the street, the FCC plans to auction 50, 80, or more MHz of 600-MHz spectrum now occupied by TV stations. Will the 600-MHz spectrum sell for the same population per MHz (pop per MHz) prices that the AWS-3 spectrum did? Will potential partners have enough cash on hand or credit lined up to become both a FirstNet partner and a bidder on the 600-MHz spectrum within the same timeframe? And lastly, how much FirstNet spectrum will actually be available on a secondary basis in the top 50 or 100 markets, where network operators or others need it most?

Yes, FirstNet is bringing value to the partnership(s), but the FirstNet team may have overvalued the balance of contribution in its favor. We all tend to value what we have more than what the other side has, but in this case, FirstNet is asking a partner to commit to a spend between $25 and $40 billion (my numbers) over a 10-year period for building, maintaining, and adding to the coverage and capacity of the FirstNet network.

The draft RFP places a number of other burdens on potential partners as well, and nowhere in document are there any assurances regarding spectrum usage. I did not find a single FirstNet statement or document that prohibits the public-safety community from using FirstNet spectrum for 24/7 backhaul (not incident, but 24/7) for stationary cameras. Cellular systems are based on mobility, not fixed usage. Having stationary cameras online, for example, will put a monkey wrench in how much spectrum is actually available. Many public-safety departments today are using the 50 MHz of 4.9-GHz licensed Wi-Fi-like spectrum for camera backhaul, but the FCC has published a new potential rulemaking that could change the amount of this spectrum that is available to public safety.

In a partnership, both or all partners feel good about their contribution and their return on that investment. FirstNet needs to meet the conditions of the law that states it will be self-sufficient and not require any more government funding. A potential partner needs to be able to prove to its board and stockholders that this investment has a payback, and the public-safety community needs a broadband network it can depend on all the time.

FirstNet is not a non-profit corporation, where a potential partner could write off the money invested as a tax-reducing donation. It is supposed to be an independent authority; therefore, potential partners must be able to see that, at some point, there will be a return on the investment they are being asked to make. I don’t see any company or group coming to assist FirstNet, regardless of the cost, simply because it is the right thing to do for the public-safety community.

There are other stumbling blocks for potential partners. One is that FirstNet has not published a firm list of who qualifies as a first responder and, therefore, is permitted on the network 24/7 and at the reduced rate the first responder community will pay. I believe there are also “sometimes” first responders. For example, a power-company truck is a first responder when—and only when—it is clearing an incident involving a downed power line. Permitting it to use the spectrum 24/7 would cause potential partners to reflect even more, because utility companies are probably their customers. Not only would they be losing revenue, they would not be gaining enough new revenue to help offset the cost of the FirstNet network.

Further, FirstNet has not provided, as part of the draft RFP, criteria for how it will evaluate respondents’ proposals. The cost to a company to simply respond to the FirstNet RFP will be many thousands of dollars, and the team must be identified and brought up to speed well before the RFP hits the streets. How can any company make these decisions when “bidding” on an RFP that does not seem to meet the criteria for obtaining a partner or two and includes no criteria for how each of the areas of each response will be weighed by those reviewing the responses?