AT&T exec discusses core-to-core interoperability, Verizon proposal, FirstNet differentiators
What is in this article?
AT&T exec discusses core-to-core interoperability, Verizon proposal, FirstNet differentiators
While Verizon’s announced proposal may sound similar to the FirstNet system being built by AT&T—AT&T will have its public-safety LTE core operational by March 2018, while Verizon stated its new core will be built sometime next year–attempting to match AT&T’s FirstNet offering may require more resources than Verizon officials anticipated, Sambar said.
“There’s a level of investment required to match what we’re doing, and I don’t know if Verizon’s making that investment or not—they haven’t disclosed it,” Sambar said. “But it’s significant, if you look at the size of this [nationwide FirstNet] contract and the level of investment that AT&T has committed to putting into it–$40 billion. I don’t know if Verizon’s willing to make that investment.”
As an example, AT&T spent “hundreds of millions of dollars to build a core with encryption,” Sambar said.
“I have read numerous articles about what Verizon is committing to—and, frankly, it’s unclear what they are committing to—but I suspect that it is not the level of differentiation that first responders are going to see on [the FirstNet] network.”
Many in the public-safety industry have indicated that they would like to see a competitive alternative to FirstNet for mission-critical broadband. FirstNet CTO Jeff Bratcher today that “competition is always great” and that basic interoperability between FirstNet and other LTE networks should not be a problem, but he also emphasized that FirstNet is designed to be different from commercial offerings.
“If you are not on a FirstNet subscription, you will not have the same capabilities as the public-safety users on FirstNet—we need to be clear about that,” Bratcher said during the “FirstNet Town Hall” session at APCO 2017.
Bratcher also noted the importance of a dedicated FirstNet public-safety core “will drive all of the ubiquitous services out of the core network. All of these features that are going to take advantage of QPP will be driven from that core implementation, with the subscriber database and the policy-and-control function within the core.”
Sambar said the differentiated capabilities provided to FirstNet subscribers will be significant, including:
FirstNet’s application store: “The FirstNet public-safety app store is for AT&T FirstNet subscribers, period. We’re vetting them for functionality and for security, because we’re going to be putting them on a secure network and a secure core. So, we don’t want something on there that’s going to be dangerous to first responders.”
FirstNet advocacy for public safety: “You’ve got a federal entity that’s got a contractual commitment with us. They’re going to hold us accountable to perform in accordance to the contract.
“Public-safety entities sometimes go to us [with questions and responses], and sometimes they go to FirstNet, and then FirstNet comes to us. We’re going to be responsive, regardless who comes to us. But, hey, we’ve got a big federal entity watching us.”
FirstNet is a total monopoly
FirstNet is a total monopoly in the making.
The RFP was written specifically to discourage open participation and entrepreneurship . FirstNet destroyed normal competition and an open on-going market approach. It walks, talks, and smells like a total monopoly.
The more I read about FirstNet the more I think it is a network in some other far away country. A secret process (out of the public eye and scrutiny) one exempt from any requests for information associated to FirstNet and its Acquisition process. A network built outside of the FAR requirements. A network with a long buy-in of 25 years from the user governments .
Mr. Sambar sounded awfully afraid of competitors, and very reliant upon his closeness with his supposed to be handlers. FirstNet is an apologist for the A.T.&T solution whenever the need arises; by explaining away any contrary notions related to the NPSBN.
FirstNet may fail and perhaps it should based on the conduct of the entire effort. By threatening and discouraging other carriers (under the guise of security within a one size fits all network) to continue to offer services, and participation in a national network is inexplicable even for FirstNet.
Understanding the meaning of
Understanding the meaning of “CORE” seems important in this discussion. Does one core mean a single 50,000 square ft building that houses transport, switching, and authentication equipment. Or is it a more loose meaning where there are several processors linked Heterogeneously within different regions in a switch like configuration. My points is the vulnerability of housing one core in one central location that can be destroyed by man or nature. So now we are getting into questions about resiliency and redundancy. One other thing,, If AT&T’s commercial network can connect to the private FirstNet core; then why can’t other carriers connect if they follow the same secure measures as AT&T. ??