‘Opt-in/opt-out’ decisions require governors to consider many factors, panelists say
What is in this article?
‘Opt-in/opt-out’ decisions require governors to consider many factors, panelists say
One concern voiced by many public-safety representatives is the coverage that FirstNet subscribers will experience in rural areas. Ray Lehr, Clear Management Solutions’ chief of public-safety consulting, said he has been impressed with the AT&T coverage plans for rural areas of Virginia that have been shared with state officials.
“I think that there’s a belief that, because the emphasis has been put on 72 deployable vehicles and satellite coverage, AT&T’s plan is not to really build out rural, but—if you have an event out there—it will roll out a vehicle,” Lehr said. “I can tell you, directly from AT&T, that is not their plan.
“What AT&T has been doing in these meetings is rolling up a map on the screen—it’s a proprietary map, so they caution everybody not to take photos of it—that actually shows their build plan for the next several years. In rural areas—in particular, where there are issues—they have plans to build out there. So, it’s going to be an actual tower.
“It’s just not going to be deployables and satellite coverage to cover rural. AT&T has actual build plans—and build plans they’re willing to share with public safety—that talk about how they’re going to provide coverage in rural areas throughout the country.”
No matter what the governor’s “opt-in/opt-out” decision is, public-safety adoption of LTE will be driven largely by the ability for broadband solutions to complement legacy LMR functionality—and for the combination to be cost-effective, according to Gregg Toback, Anritsu’s senior field manager for the Eastern region.
“Industry is working hard to empower communications of the message that a combination of LTE and LMR is an affordable solution. That is something that is stemming not only from the vendors but also from the 3GPP organization [that is the standards body for LTE]. Public-safety and critical-communications organizations are communicating that message, as well.”
It’s sad that all these
It’s sad that all these panels happen with no counter argument. I mean it’s like these panels are biased or something.
Pull quote:
“I’ve heard a lot
Pull quote:
“I’ve heard a lot of people talk about, ‘You opt out, if FirstNet doesn’t meet all of your requirements.’ Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” Joe Ross, a partner at Televate consulting firm….”
This indeed makes sense:
* If AT&T, in your state, has a poor track record of performance, poor coverage, poor site security/lack of hardening, and out of control pricing then it does not bode well that AT&T will instantly/magically become workable. It is also VERY disturbing to hear AT&T declare that there is ‘no such thing’ as a public safety standard. Shame on them. We comply with MANY standards for public safety communications design (NFPA, FEMA, NENA, APCO, published ‘good engineering practices’, etc.). AT&T doesn’t “get it”!
* It makes sense if the incumbent wireless BB provider already has a large share of the public safety business, and does not have the issues above to the degree of AT&T.
* It makes sense if there is no compelling reason to change what you have, which meets expectations.
* It makes sense when you can’t get questions answered, there is a high degree of secrecy, and there are moving targets for requirements and deadlines (i.e. the FCC just releasing its rules for Opt-Out), and there is no clear explanation of roaming and interoperability. We keep hearing that core-to-core is not allowed, but AT&T will be connecting its own “public” core to the “FirstNet Public Safety” core – it HAS to. We hear AT&T has “partner” agreements with smaller wireless providers to boost their own poor coverage – how do you do that without core-to-core? But, the “Brand V” provider has been prohibited from core-to-core out of hand? Now THAT doesn’t make sense!
* It makes sense when the required “bells and whistles” are actually “smoke and mirrors”.
* It would make sense if the selected “Opt-Out” vendor does not require BAND 14 D-Block in order to give PS reliable service with like-priority and preemption as FirstNet.
There appears to be two attractive options:
1) “Opting-In” with declared and detailed reservations (basically a whole host of unanswered questions) AND without the appearance of a state-government testimonial and endorsement of the poorly performing AT&T, or,
2) “Doing Nothing” and letting competition and open market solutions (over the next two-and-a-half decades!!!) drive the solution(s).
A state, under its own legislation, that CANNOT have a 25 year contract with ANYONE makes the entire FirstNet plan a Federalized central-planning, picking-winners-and-losers monopoly for AT&T, effectively tanking competition for public safety wireless BB for nearly 3 decades.
There will soon be an awakening and surge in doubt the more we see articles like this. I am glad people are asking questions, and disappointed and chagrined that answers are either denied, or lead to even more smoke and mirrors.