States push back against preliminary FirstNet legal interpretations on opt-out alternative
The District of Columbia—widely considered to be a prime candidate to choose the opt-out option, because of its extremely dense population and infrastructure assets—stated that FirstNet should listen to the input of the state or territory when evaluating whether a proposed network is cost effective.
“The District is not asking for more than its needs. We do, however, urge FirstNet to recognize that state requirements for the public safety network-especially in areas that are considered prime terrorist targets, such as the District of Columbia-are not efforts to ‘gold plate’ network services, but are real, essential public safety grade service requirements,” the District of Columbia’s filing states. “We urge FirstNet to consider such services a necessity, rather than a luxury, for an urban target such as the district.
“The District's track record indicates that we would understand how much funding is needed to fulfill our needs. If the District and FirstNet are able to have substantive conversations about FirstNet's business planning early in the consultation process, we believe both parties can agree on the District's funding needs.
This sentiment was echoed by the state of Nevada.
“States must decide what is interoperable and cost effective for their own agencies and populations,” the Nevada filing states. “Only the states have the necessary knowledge, expertise, and ability to clearly define their needs.”
Noting that “even an ‘independent’ agency [like FirstNet] cannot unilaterally impose policies, fees, or other conditions on states,” Nevada also questioned the authority of FirstNet to deploy its network in states that do not actively invite the entity into the state.
“We suggest that FirstNet is over-reaching and seeking to create difficulties for states who may exercise their right to opt-out,” according to the Nevada filing. “By stating, ‘…[I]f a state alternative plan is disapproved, the RAN in that state will proceed in accordance with FirstNet’s state plan,’ FirstNet essentially throws down the gauntlet to states, insisting that governors accept Washington’s terms, or FirstNet will enter a state unwelcome.
“This is the opposite of ‘working cooperatively,’ does little to engage stakeholders, and may lead to a situation where no network is built at all, or—if it is—no state-funded public-safety agencies use it. This is an unacceptable statement from FirstNet and reveals a troubling attitude towards states.”