FirstNet officials say deployment speed, cost effectiveness key criteria for opt-out states, territories

“When we look at cost effectiveness—when we look at it from a spectrum-capacity perspective—we need to look at it on a nationwide basis. Is this opt-out situation that’s being proposed cost effective to our ability to serve the nation in its entirety?”

“And, while we had some disagreement on this point, it was actually relatively small. I think folks get it and understand that we need to solve this problem in order to meet public safety’s needs.”

With this in mind, Karp reiterated FirstNet’s preliminary legal interpretation that an opt-out state would not be able to keep revenue generated from its RAN deployment in excess of the costs to operate the RAN. Any excess revenues need to be returned to FirstNet, which needs the money to build and maintain operations in rural areas of the country, he said.

“We have to build out a nationwide network,” Karp said. “And that nationwide deployment can’t be at the expense of a particular state that’s able to utilize their revenues to reinvest in their network or in their state beyond what they reasonably need to sustain their radio access network.

“We’ve engaged our stakeholders on this, and the good news is that they understand this. Some may not like it. It’s a political issue; it can be an emotional issue, it’s a sovereignty issue, and we get that—we’re very appreciative of all that. That’s why it’s important for us to collaborate and be flexible in our approach.

“But they really do get it. They understand that, ultimately, we have to deploy this network nationally for public safety’s benefit.”

In addition, Karp showed a slide indicating that FirstNet’s internal estimations show that only six unidentified states or territories are in a position to deploy and operate the RAN in their jurisdictions without having to use taxpayer funds to help pay for it.