https://urgentcomm.com/wp-content/themes/ucm_child/assets/images/logo/footer-new-logo.png
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Galleries
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • Commentary
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • All Things IWCE
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • IWCE
    • Conference
    • Special Events
    • Exhibitor Listings
    • Premier Partners
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Register for IWCE
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
    • Cookies Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • Mission Critical Technologies
    • Microwave/RF
    • T&D World
    • TU-Auto
  • In the field
    • Back
    • In the field
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Internet of Things
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Call Center/Command
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Network Tech
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Operations
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Regulations
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • Organizations
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
Urgent Communications
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Omdia Crit Comms Circle Podcast
    • Galleries
    • IWCE’s Video Showcase
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • All Things IWCE
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • UC eZines
    • Sponsored content
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • Conference
    • Why Attend
    • Exhibitor Listing
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Join the Event Mailing List
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
    • Cookies Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • TU-Auto
  • newsletter
  • In the field
    • Back
    • Internet of Things
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Cybersecurity
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
acc.com

What just happened? A review of key factors considered during the FirstNet ‘opt-in/opt-out’ decision period

What just happened? A review of key factors considered during the FirstNet ‘opt-in/opt-out’ decision period

  • Written by raidee
  • 1st October 2018

So, what did we learn during the FirstNet “opt-in/opt-out” decision period? Here are some of the key takeaways:

This was a negotiation. Even before the “opt-in/opt-out” decision period began, FirstNet officials said that states would not have a lot of wiggle room to negotiate enhancements to the FirstNet deployments plans for each state and territory, noting that the network ultimately had to fit within the constructs of the FirstNet-AT&T nationwide contract.

In fact, officials in some states cited this position as a reason why their governors made early “opt-in” decisions based on initial state plans, noting that the state officials did not believe that they could alter the FirstNet/AT&T package significantly. Instead, they wanted to “opt-in” early, with the hope that doing so would accelerate FirstNet deployment within the state and initiate competition—primarily with Verizon—that would benefit public safety.

But everything is negotiable, at least to some extent. With this in mind, other states decided to determine just how much.

These states took a decidedly different approach, issuing requests for proposal (RFPs) to select vendors to build an alternative RAN under an “opt-out” scenario. Early on, some observers even equated the initiation of RFPs as an early indication that a state’s governor planned to make an “opt-out” decision.

Yes, it was difficult to believe that a governor would make an “opt-out” decision without completing an RFP—after all, why go through the trouble of committing to build and maintain an alternative RAN without knowing whether an alternative-RAN deal would be better than the FirstNet plan? However, the inverse of this–the notion that all states issuing RFPs were on the verge of making an “opt-out” decision—simply was not the case.

There were a few states that issued RFPs because they seriously were considering an “opt-out” decision. But many more states issued RFP for different reasons. Some states viewed the procurement process as free research, and others just wanted to be able to say that they had explored all options before making an “opt-in” choice. Most did not even select a winner from the procurement.

However, one thing was clear: virtually all wanted to use the RFP results as a source of leverage—the lone source of leverage, according to some—while negotiating with FirstNet and AT&T in an effort to enhance the FirstNet deployment plan.

How well did this work? From the outside, it’s impossible to discern how much initial state plans were changed, because only an inner circle of people in each state were privy to the state plan, and even fewer learned of the evolution of each deployment plan.

But it was very clear that there was widespread disappointment in states when the initial FirstNet state plans were distributed, and it was just as apparent that state officials became much more comfortable after face-to-face meetings with FirstNet and AT&T officials in the summer. Meanwhile, it was clear that input and negotiations helped state officials become increasingly accepting of the FirstNet deployment plan, even if they stopped short of offering ringing endorsements.

Incentives matter. Another sign of the negotiating process were sporadic public indications that states were able to secure certain network enhancements from AT&T. In Colorado, an official claimed that AT&T agreed to deploy an additional 36 sites in the state, while others sought accelerated deployment timelines or the position of extra deployable communications units within the boundaries of their state or territory.

What became clear was that AT&T often agreed to such concessions in a state or territory, but only if the governor made an “opt-in” decision within a certain time period. In Vermont, the governor said AT&T agreed to build six additional sites in key locations, but only if the governor made an “opt-in” announcement by Dec. 1. In New Hampshire, AT&T made clear that its offer of enhanced coverage for the state—99% population coverage and 98% geographic coverage—would expire after the Dec. 28 deadline.

Indeed, many sources credited this incentives-based approach as a key reason why all states made “opt-in” decisions by the Dec. 28 deadline, because governors did not want to leave a better, incentive-laden deal on the table, if they did not believe the “opt-out” alternative to be a realistic choice.

Without the incentives, there was a much greater likelihood that some states would have allowed the deadline to pass without making an “opt-in/opt-out” decision—something an AT&T executive even predicted would happen in multiple states. After all, the base state plan still would have been implemented, because making no decision was to be treated as accepting the state plan; however, it became apparent that only a proactive “opt-in” decision from the governor would allow the state to receive the benefits of the incentive offerings.

All states and territories are different. FirstNet officials stated this repeatedly for years, but exactly what this meant became much clearer as RFPs were issued and during the “opt-in/opt-out” process.

In some cases, it was civics lesson in state-government operations. Before the FirstNet saga unfolded, how many people outside of New Hampshire knew about the state’s Executive Council, which shares considerable political and contractual powers with the state’s governor? Or that a 25-year deal is not allowed in many states (in many states, the limit is a 10-year contract; in Oklahoma, only one-year deals are allowed), making it much more difficult to consider the “opt-out” alternative to FirstNet?

Many states lacked the assets needed to make the “opt-out” alternative work. In extremely rural states, monetizing spectrum is not really an option, because spectrum already is readily available and inexpensive. In addition, these states typically lack the kind of metropolitan markets that are attractive to the commercial wireless market.

Furthermore, many states lack the technical expertise to oversee the deployment of a statewide LTE network. This human-resource issue would be complicated by the fact that the state would not be working alone. At all times, it would have to answer to FirstNet and AT&T to meet their network guidelines and make changes according to their timelines, which may not always be in sync with the needs or wants of the state.

“This has the potential to be a project-management nightmare,“ one source said of the prospect of a state implementing a FirstNet alternative RAN.

Tags:

Related Content

  • Electric-vehicle (EV) batteries improve but sustainability lags
  • Africa's IoT 'Uber for tractors' highlighted at Evolution Expo
  • LMR licensing activity improves from 2020, still behind pace of pre-pandemic lows
  • What just happened? A review of key factors considered during the FirstNet ‘opt-in/opt-out’ decision period
    Newscan: Ransomware group REvil demands $70 million in Kaseya supply-chain attack

Commentary


LTE and liability: Why the fire service must move forward with digital incident command

  • 2
6th May 2022

Partnership and collaboration must be the foundation for emergency communications

18th April 2022

FirstNet success means no hypothetical ‘shots’ need to be fired, Swenson says

22nd February 2022
view all

Events


UC Ezines


IWCE 2019 Wrap Up

13th May 2019
view all

Twitter


UrgentComm

Polaris Wireless: Manlio Allegra talks 911 Z-axis tech, future IoT opportunities dlvr.it/ST1384

28th June 2022
UrgentComm

Biden’s net-neutrality strategy looks doomed dlvr.it/SSyQ7d

28th June 2022
UrgentComm

Only 3% of open-source software bugs are actually attackable, researchers say dlvr.it/SSxjxK

27th June 2022
UrgentComm

Cabinless self-driving trucks get the green light dlvr.it/SSxghf

27th June 2022
UrgentComm

Autonomous vehicles in slow lane as robots accelerate dlvr.it/SSxPDQ

27th June 2022
UrgentComm

Southern Linc official discusses MCPTT migration, interoperability with new partner Catalyst dlvr.it/SSr8VD

25th June 2022
UrgentComm

Newscan: NYPD’s bomb-sniffing dogs get a high-tech upgrade to keep city safe dlvr.it/SSpSD1

25th June 2022
UrgentComm

Chinese APT group likely using ransomware attacks as cover for IP theft dlvr.it/SSmJNm

24th June 2022

Newsletter

Sign up for UrgentComm’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about Communications and Technology.

Expert Commentary

Learn from experts about the latest technology in automation, machine-learning, big data and cybersecurity.

Business Media

Find the latest videos and media from the market leaders.

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital and print audiences? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • American City & County
  • IWCE
  • Light Reading
  • IOT World Today
  • Mission Critical Technologies
  • Microwave/RF
  • T&D World
  • TU-Auto

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Careers

FOLLOW Urgent Comms ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookies Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2022 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X