[W]ith likely hundreds of millions of dollars and the future of first responder communications at stake, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu is calling on his counterparts in Vermont and elsewhere to closely scrutinize a proposed deal between the federal government and AT&T.
Sununu has gone public twice this month: first complaining that states are being coerced into taking the plan for AT&T to build out the FirstNet public safety communications system, and then last week calling for “due diligence” by states on whether opting out might be smarter.
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has been quieter. He must decide by year’s end whether to sign on with the FirstNet-AT&T plan or take another path. A special state Public Safety Broadband Commission is due to make a recommendation by Nov. 15.
A New Hampshire state panel studying the FirstNet-AT&T proposal recommended opting out in early October — six weeks before the Vermont panel is expected to forward its recommendation.
On Oct. 12, VTDigger obtained and published portions of a “confidential draft” document called a spectrum management lease agreement. That document warned of costs and system limitations facing states that opt out of the AT&T-FirstNet program. It said Vermont could face penalties up to $173 million if it opted out and then failed to develop a system of its own that met FirstNet standards. And it said the state’s “full faith and credit” would be on the line.
Sununu, like Scott a Republican, criticized the New Hampshire version of that FirstNet document. “These fees and penalties appear to be arbitrary and primarily designed to deter states from opting out of FirstNet plans,” he said. Sununu appointed another special panel to focus on what the ramifications of opting out might be.
Last week, Sununu sent a letter to 54 other governors of states and U.S. territories, urging them to do “due diligence” before deciding whether to opt in or out with the AT&T-FirstNet project.
Susanne Young, Vermont’s secretary of administration and a top aide to Scott, said in an email that Vermont would do its own due diligence before the commission’s recommendation to Scott.
“As you know, the Broadband Commission is reviewing both the opt-in and opt-out scenarios and reviewing the FirstNet and Rivada proposals,” Young wrote. Rivada Networks is another firm that has submitted a proposal to the state to build its public safety communications network.
Young said Vermont officials are studying the FirstNet summary document warning of steep penalties if the state opts out and then fails to build a system to FirstNet standards. “On its face, the summary of terms raises concerns,” she wrote.
“We intend to take the time necessary to complete what I am confident will be thorough due diligence and comparison of the proposals before the commission makes its recommendation,” Young added.
The stakes are large. FirstNet, a program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, in March selected AT&T as its national vendor for building a new generation of public safety communication networks during the next 25 years. It would be a significant new piece of business for any telecom carrier. But it also comes with a key piece of the telecommunications spectrum, known in the industry as Band 14, that winning FirstNet vendors get to use.
First responders would get priority use of the new networks, which are also seen as potentially providing a much-needed boost to Vermont’s sometimes spotty cellular phone and broadband internet services during times when the system isn’t needed for emergencies.
One Vermont citizen-advocate on telecom and transparency issues, Stephen Whitaker, has been keeping a close eye on the process. One of many unanswered questions, Whitaker maintains, are what provisions there are in the FirstNet plan for hardening of cellular antenna towers against floods, fires and other disasters, so they are available to first responders when they are most needed.
In Sununu’s letter to other governors, he too appeared to believe more information is needed before making a decision.
“I strongly encourage each of you to pause and work with us as we seek further answers from Federal officials,” Sununu wrote. “Whether you ultimately decide to opt in or opt out, I believe that we will all benefit by a collective insistence that each state receive the information it needs to make a fully informed decision.”
