Governors likely will be missing key FirstNet data point, making opt-out decision even more precarious

State officials’ desire for greater control over a broadband network that is expected to carry communications to its public-safety efforts is understandable. But it is increasingly doubtful whether opt-out states actually would get the kind of control they might envision.

An opt-out state must pay for all integration with the nationwide FirstNet system and maintain a uniform experience level for users throughout the rest of the country. Opt-out states will have to execute technology upgrades must be done when FirstNet and its contractor decide, even if the state is experiencing economic hardships related to a downturn in a key industry to the state or territory at the time.

FirstNet is proposing a 25-year deal, so the odds are pretty good that an opt-out state would have to pay for network upgrades at an inconvenient economic time at least once during the term of the commitment. It is possible that a state or territory could try to pass bonds to ensure that they have the necessary funding, but getting voters’ support for such measure is always challenging—and it promises to be even tougher when voters realize that the federal government was willing to pay the entire bill.

With “excess” revenues in an opt-out state slated to go back to FirstNet, the opt-out alternative appears to present little reward to states and territories, but it requires them to assume tremendous long-term risk, even if everything goes about as well as expected.

Meanwhile, what if a technology is invented that undermines the value of spectrum—the basis of the opt-out state’s financial model? I don’t envision that, but who dreamed 25 years ago (before Internet access became commonplace) that the wireless industry would be where it today?

Given this, state officials should approach the opt-out decision with extreme caution, absent a significant policy change mandated by a court or Congress.