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

Some states had other complicating factors. While all governors tend to want to avoid future financial liabilities (see next section), this was especially true in states that already face budgetary issues and/or are projected to have financial problems in the future, primarily because of underfunded pension plans or other economic trends. And at least one state was entangled in a budget-related court case that likely would have complicated any “opt-out” efforts.

State differences also manifested themselves in the manner in which governors made their “opt-in” announcements. Some made the announcement amid well-orchestrated pomp and circumstance, while others simply tweeted the news—at times, catching even FirstNet and AT&T representatives off guard. Some governors signed the “opt-in” notification and then waited days—even weeks, according to some sources—to make an official announcement. Other governors declined to even be quoted in their state’s own press releases about the FirstNet decision.

And the approaches taken by the state governments in evaluating the FirstNet options varied tremendously. New Hampshire’s evaluation process took about two years and included a completed procurement. In contrast, the window for evaluating RFP bids seemed to shrink as the Dec. 28 deadline approached, with California giving evaluators only a week to review proposals submitted in December. Pennsylvania’s legislature conducted a public hearing. Meanwhile, Virginia officials had access to the initial state plan for only a brief period before the state’s governor decided to make an “opt-in” announcement.

In other words, this was not a cookie-cutter process, although all of the states ultimately made FirstNet “opt-in” decision.

While there were many differences between the states, there was one consistent theme that emerged:

Avoiding risk was a priority for governors. Officials in many states and territories carefully evaluated the FirstNet deployment plan and the alternative RAN offerings, if an RFP process was conducted. Even after negotiating with AT&T, in some cases—most notably, in California and New Hampshire—the consensus of these evaluations was that the FirstNet deployment plan fell short of what public-safety personnel in the state should have.

Even when announcing “opt-in” decisions, many governors declined to express excitement about the FirstNet system. Instead, almost all governors emphasized that making an “opt-in” decision represented the lowest-risk option to the state, because it meant that the state would not be exposed to any of the financial liabilities associated with an “opt-out” choice.

With an “opt-in” scenario, the state or territory would not assume any financial responsibility for the network deployment or maintenance. Sure, state and local agencies would still face subscription and device costs, but those are optional. If they did not subscribe to FirstNet, they would not incur any expenses. Meanwhile, AT&T would build, maintain and upgrade the network in the state—at no cost to the state—no matter how many public-safety subscribers chose to use it.

In an “opt-out” scenario, the state or territory would be responsible for ensuring that the public-safety wireless broadband system would be built, maintained and upgraded in a manner that would enable seamless integration with the nationwide FirstNet system being run by AT&T.

Admittedly, the state RFPs were designed to protect the state from any financial liabilities, but this was much easier said than done. Virtually all RFPs called for the alternative-RAN bids to provide a “no-cost” solution to the state, and Rivada Networks made proposals promising that states would not have to pay for anything, but the protections were not airtight, according to many sources. And that introduced unwanted risk, as the “opt-out” state ultimately would be responsible for making payments to ensure that public safety had a FirstNet broadband option within its borders.

This is understandable, as performance bonds spanning 25 years are far from normal in the surety industry. Making it even more difficult are the special circumstances surrounding an alternative RAN in an “opt-out” scenario. Issuing a performance bond to build the initial 4G LTE network in a state would be pretty straightforward, but covering upgrades to mobile 5G, 6G and possibly 7G—technologies that are ill-defined, at best—during the next 25 years would be extremely difficult for any financial institution that would consider underwriting the initiative.

Even if that barrier could be cleared—and Rivada Networks officials repeatedly said it could—there was little doubt that such a performance bond would impact the economics of an “opt-out” initiative.

In addition, an “opt-out” state would have faced the need to pay FirstNet for the right to use the Band 14 spectrum and a termination fee, if the “opt-out” initiative went awry, for technical or financial reasons. An “opt-out” state also would have to pay for its own testing to ensure seamless integration with the FirstNet system and have additional personnel to handle the project-management duties with the alternative RAN. Presumably, the vendor would pay for these things, but such expenses negatively impact the economics of the “opt-out” alternative.

While these costs were known or could be estimated, the cost to access the FirstNet core was not. This unknown was a sore spot for many state officials, as was the unwillingness for FirstNet and AT&T to state whether AT&T could offer FirstNet service in an “opt-out” state, which could have played a significant role in determining whether the public-safety-adoption targets were realistically attainable.

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