Pitkin County Broadband Phase II Final Report August 31, 2016

Transcription

1 Pitkin County Broadband Phase II Final Report August 31, 2016 Preliminary Design and Analysis of Broadband Services for Pitkin County Drainages Eric Hager Sid Arnold Evan Biagi Justin Brunell John Charters

2 Table of Contents Summary 5 Definitions: Use of Industry Terms... 8 Task 1: Inventory of existing assets, supporting services in Pitkin County drainages Overview Current or Planned Tower and Backhaul Assets Carrier/Utility Asset Review Right of Ways Holy Cross Energy Tower and Wireless Assets CenturyLink Comcast Cedar Networks Rise Broadband City of Aspen/Pitkin County Fiber Aspen Skiing Company Data Delivery Task 2: Develop a preliminary design of a broadband telecommunications network outlining the different types of technology, or combination of technologies and include preliminary cost estimates for construction of proposed solutions Overview Technology Considered Design Approach Fixed Wireless for the Last Mile Access Licensed Microwave in the DTRS Backhaul Network Licensed Microwave for ISP Access to the DTRS Backhaul Network Fiber Coverage Analysis Wireless Spectrum Coverage Tower Placement & Coverage Network Design Cost Analysis Aggregation Points and Meet Me Centers Meet Me Center Option Conclusions Task 3: Develop a Deployment Plan with an anticipated rollout strategy, scope and timing of implementing the designed network Overview Deployment Stages Service Deployment Stages and Drainages Service Deployment Costs by Stages

3 3.4 Service Deployment Costs by County Funding Sources Evaluation of Demand and Pricing Service Deployment - Meet Me Center Network Operation Considerations Aggregation Point Model Meet Me Center Model Public Private Partnerships Community Outreach & Demand Aggregation Summary Next Steps Attachment 1 Drainages Attachment 2 Fiber Assets Attachment 3 Anchor Institutions with Fiber Attachment 4 DTRS Towers Surveyed Attachment 5 RFTA Conduit and Right of Ways Attachment 6 Holy Cross Wireless Assets Attachment 7 Dark Fiber Vs. Licensed Microwave for Frying Pan Attachment 8 Licensed Microwave vs. Fiber to Marble Attachment 9 New Tower Examples Attachment 10 Web Based Portal and Community Outreach Figure 1: Rise Broadband Coverage Figure 2: Drainages Mapped Figure 3: 5.8Ghz Coverage Figure 4: 3.65Ghz Coverage Figure 5 2.5Ghz Coverage Figure 6: Network Backhaul Diagram Figure 7: Aggregation Points and Middle Mile Figure 8: Meet Me Centers and Middle Mile Figure 9: Combined Fiber Assets Figure 10: CenturyLink Fiber Figure 11: Comcast Fiber Figure 12: Cedar Networks Fiber Figure 13: City of Aspen Fiber Figure 14: Aspen Ski Company Fiber

4 Figure 15: Sample Page from Original Rio Grande Trail Telecom Design Figure 16: Holy Cross Energy Microwave Network Figure 17: Relay Tower Examples Figure 18: Web Portal for Community Outreach Table 1: DTRS Backhaul Network Capacity Table 2: 3.65Ghz vs 2.5Ghz Coverage Table 3: Tower Placement Table 4: Additional Relay Tower and DTRS Backhaul Cost Analysis Table 5: 1Gbps Middle Mile Aggregation Point Costs Table 6: 10Gbps Middle Mile Aggregation Point Costs Table 7: 1Gbps Middle Mile Meet Me Center Costs Table 8: 10Gbps Middle Mile Meet Me Center Costs Table 9: Meet Me Center Capital Costs Table 10: Deployment Stages and Drainages Table 11: Deployment Costs per Stage Table 12: Deployment Costs per County Table 13: ISP Broadband Pricing Table 14: COS Systems Cost Structure Table 15: Community Outreach and Aggregation Cost Summary Table 16: Drainage Detail Table 17: Anchor Institution List Table 18: Fraying Pan Microwave versus Fiber Table 19: Marble Backhaul Comparison

5 Summary Forethought has been contracted to provide a Preliminary Design and Analysis of Broadband Services for Pitkin County Drainages (Phase II). The project includes asset identification, preliminary design, coverage analysis and cost analysis of a broadband network that will provide residents and businesses in unserved and underserved drainages of Pitkin County with competitively priced high speed data, Internet, and voice services (hereinafter referred to as broadband ). Due to the terrain of the drainages, the service area of coverage extends beyond Pitkin County and includes some areas in Eagle, Garfield and Gunnison counties. See Attachment 1 for description of drainages. Forethought and partners Mammoth Networks and Mitchell & Company have completed Task 1 - Assets Review, Task 2 - Network Design, and Task 3 Deployment Plan. The following report details conclusions and recommendations to achieve objectives of serving unserved and underserved drainages in Pitkin and adjacent counties. Task 1, Task 2, and Task 3 are comprised of the following: Task 1: Asset Review: Prepare an inventory of existing assets, services and infrastructure in the Pitkin County drainages. This includes not only the existing telecommunications infrastructure, but other physical assets such as publicly owned communications towers, trails and rights-of-way, government centers and proximity to major fiber offramps and points-of-presence. Infrastructure may include, but is not limited to, existing conduit, fiber, utility poles, rack space, nodes, governmental buildings, other facilities or switch locations and other assets and services identified by the Contractor. In addition, identify the ownership and access to existing fiber, conduit, rights of way or other assets. Task 2: Network Plan: Develop a preliminary design of a broadband telecommunications network outlining the type of technology (fiber-optic cable [aerial or buried], wireless, other state-ofthe-art technology or combination of the above) and includes preliminary cost estimates for construction of the proposed solutions. This task also includes GIS mapping of the following: a) existing telecommunications infrastructure, b) areas of need, and c) proposed infrastructure routes of drainage solutions. 5

6 Conclusions Task 3: Deployment Plan: Develop a Deployment Plan with a discussion of the anticipated rollout strategy, scope and timing of the proposed rollout. The discussion should identify the levels of committed demand necessary to trigger rollout obligations and any factors likely to influence the scope or timing of the rollout, and explain how those factors impact the strategy. Include a projected timeline for all drainages listed in Attachment 1 with full build-out achieved in five (5) years. The following is a summary of conclusions in subsequent sections of report: Task 1 Asset Review: Pitkin County s transition to the Colorado Statewide Digital Trunked Radio System (DTRS) for Public Safety provides the basis to serve unserved and underserved drainages throughout the Roaring Fork region by leveraging the existing infrastructure and the microwave backhaul network. Expanding existing fiber to drainages is not cost effective. There are multiple fiber paths that are available as part of a middle mile system and scalable without building new fiber in/out of Pitkin County. Task 2 Network Design: By incorporating core Pitkin County tower assets that are part of the DTRS, with additional proposed relay towers, the proposed network design will enable ISP partnerships to deliver high speed broadband services to 95% of unserved or underserved households in drainages with broadband services equal to urban areas in Pitkin County (e.g. Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, or Snowmass Village). Since fiber to towers or drainages is not cost effective, any solution must use all available publicprivate assets. The conceptual model for the network design proposes: Hybrid use of existing wireless and fiber backhaul. Use of existing middle mile fiber options with built-in redundancy. Tower radio equipment supporting subscriber broadband service funded by ISPs. Task 3 Deployment Plan: We believe a staged deployment plan that mirrors the DTRS transition through 2018 will be required and aligns deployment costs of proposed new relay towers with 6

7 potential funding options. The proposed deployment model is based on demand aggregation through community engagement that aligns deployment and investment with demand. Our report follows a market report and feasibility study conducted by Pitkin County in This report does not readdress market data outlining the economic development prospects or surveys of broadband interest. The purpose of this report and associated research is to provide recommendations for middle mile transport that focuses on reaching the unserved and underserved areas of the region. Summary Recommendations A proposed wireless broadband solution that leverages Pitkin County s DTRS tower and microwave backhaul network assets, serving 95% of unserved and underserved households in 13 drainages. A redundant network design for Aggregation Points, fiber and wireless, for Internet Service Provider s (ISP s) access to DTRS s microwave backhaul network. A diverse and scalable middle mile fiber option that expands Aggregation Points to meet me centers supporting community anchor institutions through an Open Access Network model. A deployment model based on stages of DTRS deployment, funding, and community engagement through a Web portal to determine demand and justification for building recommended additional relay towers. 7

8 Definitions: Use of Industry Terms Aggregation Point: Anchor institution: Backhaul Network: Bandwidth: Dark Fiber: End User: Internet Service Provider (ISP): Internet Transit: KMZ File: Last Mile: Lit Service: LTE (Long Term Evolution): Meet Me Center: Metro Ethernet: Middle Mile: Open Access Network: Oversubscription: Relay Tower: Subscriber: Transport: Location where a backhaul network interconnects with the middle mile network. An entity such as State, County, City, (Schools, Libraries, Non-Profits, etc.) that can aggregate broadband service as a bulk buyer of broadband services. The portion of a service delivery network that connects Last Mile network to the middle mile network. A measure of data transport such as megabits per second (Mbps) or gigabits per second (Gbps). Any segment of fiber optic cable that currently does not have any equipment attached or service running across it. Typically, any fiber segment fiber optic cables are bundles of individual fiber optical strands, each capable of providing a unique data service. Both Dark Fiber and Lit Fiber can exist within a fiber optic cable. Any user, residential, business or government entity that obtains broadband service. A company that provides broadband connectivity, support and interfaces directly with End Users. The portion of the network where Internet service is provided by connecting to Tier 1 or Internet Backbone Network. A file that stores map locations viewable in Google Earth, a global mapping program. It provides a bird's eye view of locations throughout the U.S. and other areas of the world. KMZ files store place marks that may include a custom name and the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the location. The portion of a service delivery network that provides service closest to the subscriber. Any fiber connection provided by a carrier that include equipment at both ends. Specifications applied to cellular service, commonly known as 4G and 5G for voice and data that is rapidly being adapted to fixed wireless spectrum. LTE standards applied to Fixed Wireless support 25-50Mbps broadband service to subscribers and is project to support 300Mbps download in their roadmap for An Open Access Network, this is the facility where last mile and backhaul Networks terminate, and middle mile, or Internet transit are accessed. A broadband access technology that is based on Ethernet standards, typically deployed over Fiber or bonded copper lines. The portion of the service delivery network that connects it to Internet Transit facilities or other regional networks A physical service delivery network that allows multiple entities to provision services across a common infrastructure. This creates an open market and platform for Internet Service Providers to add value to End Users. The Open Access Network provider remains neutral and independent and offers standard and transparent pricing to ISPs on its network. A network engineering practice for statistically optimizing a network with ratios of data transport capacity at interface points in a service delivery network: subscribers access, backhaul network, middle mile network and IP Transient. A Tower linked to a primary Tower backhaul system to extend coverage. A broadband service location e.g. a home or business located in service area. The underlining infrastructure (copper, fiber, or wireless) that provides data transmission between locations. 8

9 Task 1: Inventory of existing assets, supporting services in Pitkin County drainages. 1.0 Overview Forethought has completed an in-depth analysis, based on local verification, of public and private assets that can be utilized in providing broadband services at FCC standards of 25MB per subscriber in targeted drainages. This analysis includes: 1. Current or Planned Tower Assets 2. Carrier/Utility Asset Review 3. Right of Ways Rio Grande Trail & Holy Cross Energy Poles 4. Holy Cross Energy Wireless Backhaul assets 5. CenturyLink 6. Comcast 7. Cedar Networks 8. Rise Broadband 9. City of Aspen/Pitkin County Fiber 10. Aspen Skiing Company 11. Mapping of Anchor Institutions 1.1 Current or Planned Tower and Backhaul Assets During the review of county owned towers, we fully considered the expansion of the County s Public Safety radio system to a Digital Trunked Radio System (DTRS). This project presents a great opportunity to collaborate and leverage the funding of the DTRS project to expand broadband availability. A number of additional towers beyond the scope of the DTRS project would be required to extend near full coverage to all drainages, as well as upgrades to existing towers. Additional relay towers are specified with approximate coordinates in the Network Design section. Attachment 9 provides a report on initial DTRS towers surveyed for suitability for use by ISPs to locate equipment, including recommendations for extending height of a least one DTRS tower. The costs to engineer or re-engineer DTRS towers or new relay towers is not part of current scope of work and should be considered. The 4.2Gbps potential capacity of the DTRS microwave backhaul Network negates the need for building fiber to drainages. The DTRS microwave backhaul Network will initially have 400Mbps capacity, with 200Mbps excess capacity available to support backhaul needs of ISPs. The cost to expand the DTRS s microwave backhaul capacity to 2.1Gbps and 4.2 Gbps should be considered as eventually required. A detailed analysis of DTRS backhaul requirements, to support increasing numbers of subscribers is included in the Network Design section. 9

10 The one exception is the status of the proposed McClure tower. If this tower is not built, an alternate path to extend backhaul to a tower for the Town of Marble will be required. In this event we propose leasing fiber from CenturyLink. A fiber lease from CenturyLink should be a transport service, considering oversubscription, directly to one of the proposed ISP Aggregation Points. 1.2 Carrier/Utility Asset Review We have mapped all fiber assets, including fiber assets owned by private companies and public entities, throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, including an inventory of fiber to anchor institutions. Following are specifics of various entities and their respective assets. For this public report, proprietary vendor information on fiber assets has been redacted, though full report is provided in separate documents and in KMZ files under non-disclosure agreements. 1.3 Right of Ways We have explored the potential use of right of ways (ROW) for Holy Cross Energy utility poles and conduit along the path of the Rio Grande Trail through the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA). Holy Cross Energy has a significant number of utility poles within target drainages and offer joint use agreements to public entities and private companies registered with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The locations of these poles have been mapped, and will be provided to Pitkin County as part of the layered KMZ files provided. We consider these assets in our Network Design section to attach fiber to service DTRS and proposed relay towers. We have not included fiber attachment to poles an alternative to DTRS microwave backhaul because of cost and is discuss in network design section. There has been considerable speculation on RFTA s Rio Grande Trail assets and ROWs. There are issues with using these assets or ROWs because of uncertainty of ownership. RFTA is currently pursuing the issues surrounding the potential use of spare conduit. However, due to the large amount of legal and administrative time necessary to obtain this information it is not a priority for them at the moment. Nevertheless, we have documented these assets and ROWs. There are four conduits buried along the Rio Grande Trail. Two conduits are used by CenturyLink as their primary fiber transport from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. Two of the conduits are potentially available to private or public parties, see Attachment 5. Since the Rio Grande Trail is not a potential diverse path in and out of Pitkin County, and is not in proximity to serve drainages with fiber, we have just documented the potential assets and ROW, but did not included it in our Network Design. 10

11 1.4 Holy Cross Energy Tower and Wireless Assets Holy Cross Energy utilizes licensed microwave links throughout the region to interconnect their primary substations and monitor their power grid. See Attachment 6 for additional information. Their microwave network is not available for shared commercial use without perfection (changes) to easements which would be cost prohibitive. In addition, with multiple egress middle mile fiber paths discovered, there is no value in considering looking further into these assets as an alternate middle mile option. 1.5 CenturyLink CenturyLink, the incumbent local telephone carrier, currently feeds Pitkin County with a fiber and copper infrastructure that extends throughout the Hwy 82 Corridor. They operate Central Offices (which house their network and telephone equipment) in Aspen, Basalt, Snowmass Village, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Each of these Central Offices are interconnected with Fiber, and most have fiber extending to service locations throughout their respective service area. Metro Ethernet Services are available at each of these Central offices where fiber exists. DSL is their primary form of providing broadband services, and DSL is deployed out of each Central Office, as well as out of Remote Terminals. Remote Terminals are aggregation nodes of copper wires that can be outfitted with DSL provisioning equipment. Remote Terminals can be fed with copper or Fiber. CenturyLink is required to invest according to Connect America Fund II (CAF II) requirements to support 10MB in parts of the targeted drainage areas over a six-year period. This is likely to be DSL technology improvements to support up to 10MB broadband service as mandated by CAF II. CenturyLink has confirmed they have no deployment plans in 2016 and would not be able to discuss any future plans until late 2016 or Regardless, CenturyLink potential CAF II investments do not meet FCC broadband requirements of 25MB broadband minimum requirements, and should not be considered as viable future broadband service options. 1.6 Comcast Comcast is the franchised cable television operator throughout many areas of Pitkin County. Comcast has an extensive fiber optic middle mile, backhaul, and last mile coax infrastructure throughout the valley. They typically provide broadband over their coax cable, but can also provide Metro Ethernet type services where they have fiber in urban areas to businesses. Comcast s network does not extend to areas within the 13 drainages defined as unserved or underserved. 1.7 Cedar Networks Cedar Networks is a local Internet Service Provider offering a combination of wireline services such as DSL and T1s, as well as fiber optic based services. Cedar Networks has been rapidly expanding their fiber presence in the valley, and has rolled out fiber to businesses and anchor 11

12 institutions in Aspen. Basalt, and Carbondale. Cedar s fiber assets have been taken into consideration and are part of our recommended network design. 1.8 Rise Broadband Rise Broadband is currently servicing many parts of Pitkin County with their Fixed Wireless solution utilizing 5.8GHrz spectrum. As shown in the coverage map below, with overlaid targeted drainages in blue lines, they do not support most unserved and undeserved drainages. This limited coverage is mostly a function of commercial towers in drainages and the 5.8GHz spectral characteristics their service offering are based upon. 5.8Ghz spectrum needs direct line of sight, meaning clear sight without obstructions of mountain terrain or foliage. We have excluded 5.8Ghz from our network design. Figure 1: Rise Broadband Coverage 12

13 1.9 City of Aspen/Pitkin County Fiber The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have been building a fiber network to interconnect their various agencies for years. It was discovered that many portions of the network were built in collaboration with Comcast, and resides in the same conduit as Comcast fiber. Depending on the particular fiber segment, there may or may not be restrictions on the usage of the fiber. In general, all fiber segments can be used for governmental purposes, but allowing commercial traffic may be limited per the collaboration agreement when it was installed. The entire COA/PC fiber network has been mapped and provided in a layered KMZ file. We were unable to obtain the terms of the use of these assets for Open Access commercial use Aspen Skiing Company Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) has been installing fiber optic lines primarily on their lifts for years. They utilize fiber for lift controls and communications, and in many cases have spare fiber available. Most of the newer lifts (built within the last decade or so) have fiber running up the lift towers. There are some instances where the fiber is extended into ASC facilities at the resort, and ASC uses the fiber for their internal networking purposes. The ASC fiber infrastructure has been mapped, and should be considered for its potential for extending Network Design to urban areas Data Delivery Forethought has provided Pitkin County with all data obtained in Task 1 for an internal report, as attachment, and as a public document redacting proprietary data from vendors, in a separate document. However, the data redacted is provided under nondisclosure in separate documents and layered KMZ files for Pitkin s reference and internal use Conclusions The planned DTRS microwave backhaul network provides the basis to serve unserved and underserved drainages by ISP s. There are multiple middle mile fiber paths that are available and scalable without building new fiber in/out of Pitkin County. Excluded from the Network Design phase are assets from: Holy Cross Energy Wireless or Pole Assets RAFTA Right of Ways and Conduit on the Rio Grande Trail CenturyLink CAF II funding Included in the Network Design phase are assets from: Excess Capacity of DTRS Backhaul Network 13

14 Fiber assets of City of Aspen/Pitkin County Fiber assets of Aspen Skiing Company Middle Mile Fiber from CenturyLink, Cedar and Comcast 14

15 Task 2: Develop a preliminary design of a broadband telecommunications network outlining the different types of technology, or combination of technologies and include preliminary cost estimates for construction of proposed solutions. 2.0 Overview Forethought has completed a preliminary network design utilizing a combination of assets determined in Task 1 with technologies most cost effective to achieve objectives. Our preliminary design includes: 1. Technology Considered 2. Design Approach 3. Coverage Analysis 4. Network Design 5. Cost Analysis 6. Middle Mile Options 7. Aggregation Points and Meet Me Center Options 8. Conclusions 2.1 Technology Considered Based on feedback received from Pitkin County staff and the June BOCC meeting, we are focusing on a network design that provides broadband access to 95% of unserved and underserved drainage areas while also maintaining a justifiable cost structure. In addition, we are designing a network that is scalable and sustainable with technology that will evolve with increasing demand for higher broadband speeds. During this process, several different technologies were considered and for reference are defined as follows: Cable: Dark Fiber: Fixed Wireless: Coaxial cable is deployed by cable companies, and was originally used to transport analog video. Technology advancements have allowed for coax to be used to transmit data in a highly efficient manner. Cable systems are often deployed in a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) model, where fiber is used to a node, and then coax is used to all of the endpoint beyond the node. The bandwidth to each node is shared among all of the connections within the node. Dark fiber refers to fiber optic lines that are not connected to equipment. The main advantage of dark fiber is that the customer can install their own electronics at each end, and provision the connection with any services and speed desired. Fixed Wireless is an access technology mainly used in providing Last Mile connections to residents and businesses. Several frequencies, both licensed and unlicensed can be used with Fixed Wireless. 15

16 Bandwidth: Dark Fiber: End User: a measure of data transport suchas Mbps or Gbps. any segment of fiber optic cable that currently does not have any equipment attached or service running across it. Typically, any fiber segment fiber optic cables are bundles of individual fiber optical strands, each capable of providing a unique data service. Both Dark Fiber and Lit Fiber can exist within a fiber optic cable. any user,residential, business or government entity that obtains broadband service. 2.2 Design Approach The network design approach incorporates several of the above technologies described in the following Network Design segments. 1. Fixed Wireless for the Last Mile Access 2. Licensed Microwave of the DTRS Backhaul Network 3. Fiber and Licensed Microwave for ISP access to the DTRS Backhaul Network 4. Lit Fiber for the Middle Mile Connectivity. 5. Dark Fiber Comparisons Fixed Wireless for the Last Mile Access As part of Task 1 we were made aware of the existing project Pitkin County was already engaged to upgrade their Public Safety network to a DTRS network. When it came time to prepare a wireless coverage design, we focused on tower assets already slated for DTRS deployment, then other tower assets owned by Pitkin County, and then new relay towers necessary to expand coverage in drainages to reach 95% of subscriber locations. The targeted drainages requiring coverage are located down winding canyons with mountain and foliage obstructions. Most wireless frequencies do not work well unless there is line of sight, or near line of sight, to subscriber locations from the closest access tower. 5.8Ghz and 2.4Ghz are not suitable because of their requirement for line of sight. For these reasons, we settled on two specific frequency blocks, Ghz and 2.5GHz that are well suited to penetrating obstructions of mountains and foliage and are available to many ISPs. Additionally, both frequency blocks are supported by Long Term Evolution (LTE) Fixed Wireless technology. LTE technology, originally a cellular service technology, is rapidly being adapted to fixed wireless spectrum including the 2.5Ghz and Ghz spectrum recommended. The continuing evolution of LTE standards provides long term protection from obsolescence and is able to meet the increasing demands for broadband speeds in the future. LTE standards project 300MB download and 75MB upload capacity in their roadmap through Our 16

17 expectation is ISP service offerings will be at least 25Mbps, and as LTE standard evolves Mbps service offerings Ghz Licensed Spectrum Citizens Broadband Radio Service The FCC has designated spectrum comprises the range from 3.5Ghz Ghz and 3.65Ghz - 3.7Ghz into a new spectrum block under FCC rules as the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). There is little chance for interference since the spectrum s use is required to be filed with the FCC and not to be used in conflict with other licensees. Within a two-year period, the FCC will allow for the purchase of frequency channels, by census blocks, to further reduce interference potential. Note, Google has been instrumental in the development of the FCC rules and management of CBRS. Google recently has obtained approval for trials throughout the US in the currently unused 3.5Ghz spectrum in rural and urban areas. Google, a pioneer in building fiber communities Gigabit Cities, is deploying this wireless spectrum for high speed wireless alternative to serve areas that are not cost justified to install fiber. In the meantime, services can be deployed in the 3.65Ghz to 3.7Ghz spectrum block licensed by many ISPs. 2.5Ghz Licensed Spectrum This spectrum is licensed through the FCC in 30-mile radius areas. Primary owners are cellular companies, Educational Broadcast Service (EBS) providers, and Internet Service Providers. Since the spectrum is licensed there is no possibility of interference and the output power is allowed to be higher. Higher output power allows 2.5Ghz radio signals to travel farther and penetrate obstructions better for greater coverage. This frequency works well in line of site, near line of sight, and non-line of site environments. Currently there are multiple 2.5GHz licenses in use/available within the Roaring Fork Watershed. Both frequencies can coexist on a relay towers without interfering with each other. We expect ISPs will use a combination of these options for subscribers in both non-line of sight and line of sight environments. 17

18 2.2.2 Licensed Microwave in the DTRS Backhaul Network The DTRS microwave backhaul network can be expanded to 2.1Gbps or 4.2Gbps capacity according to Pitkin County staff, with 200Mbps reserved for DTRS use. There is potentially 1.9Gbps or 4Gbps excess capacity available to support backhaul needs for ISP s to provide broadband service to subscribers. To determine the level of DTRS backhaul capacity needed, we recommend using industry standards for oversubscription. Oversubscription is a network engineering practice for statistically optimizing a network with ratios of data transport capacity, at interface points in a service delivery network: backhaul network and subscriber access. For backhaul Networks the ratio of potential data transport to active subscribers is 10:1, meaning at any one time 1/10 th of active subscribers will be transmitting data without slowing down any other individual subscriber s experience. There is also additional oversubscription at the LTE subscriber s point of access in the ratio of active to registered subscribers. LTE Fixed wireless systems have a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of active to register subscribers. Register subscribers represent the total number of subscribers supported by a LTE Fixed Wireless system s access points on a tower. Active subscribers represent the number of subscribers that may be active at any one time. For example, as state by Pitkin County staff, the initial DTRS microwave backhaul network will be 400Mbps. 200Mbps is dedicated to the DTRS system. This leaves 200Mbps available for initial ISP backhaul transport. So, 200Mbps factoring 10X oversubscription equals 2,000Mbps (2Gbps) of effective backhaul capacity supporting active subscribers. If each active subscriber is provided 25Mbps service, the number of active subscribers supported would be 2000Mbps divided by 25Mbps or 80 active subscribers. Further, in this example, the total number registered subscribers are multiplied by 3X or 4X for a total number of 240 or 320 subscribers. The following table shows total subscribers supported with oversubscription at different capacities of DTRS backhaul. Pitkin county should plan to upgrade their DTRS backhaul capacity to at least 2.1Gbps. Expanding the DTRS backhaul capacity to 2.1Gbps, less DTRS dedicated to 200Mbps, provides with oversubscription over 95% backhaul support for targeted drainages with 3112 subscriber locations. This capacity serves 95% of subscriber location in unserved or underserved target drainages. Table 1: DTRS Backhaul Network Capacity Excess Microwave Backhaul Capacity Excess Backhaul Over Subscription 10X Subscribers Supported LTE 3X Subscribers Supported LTE 4X 200Mbps 2,000Mbps GMps 19,000Mbps 2,280 3,040 4Gbps 40,000Mbps 4,800 6,400 18

19 Note, we have not factored cost of upgrading the DTRS Backhaul Network in our cost analysis Licensed Microwave for ISP Access to the DTRS Backhaul Network It is important to understand that the DTRS microwave backhaul network must be accessible at common locations where ISP s have a presence in order to provide Internet service. Our design establishes this connectivity at the two Aggregation Points, one in Basalt and one in Aspen. Two Aggregation Points are essential for a redundant or alternate path in case of failure of a single Aggregation Point to the DTRS microwave backhaul network fails Fiber The use of fiber optic transport was also explored for direct connectivity at multiple DTRS and relay tower sites. To illustrate the cost differences of building dark fiber versus licensed microwave, we developed a cost comparison model that illustrates the differences between building dark fiber to the drainages versus using licensed microwave to the DTRS wireless backhaul network. At this time, it is clear that using licensed microwave will be the much more cost effective approach to connect additional towers. A detailed analysis of these cost differences can be found in Attachment 7 ($222K versus $4.6M) for the Frying Pan, and Attachment 8 ($222K versus $878K) for the Town of Marble. However, connectivity to Marble may be an exception to the use of licensed microwave if the McClure site is not developed. As an alternative, there is an option to obtain Lit Service along this fiber path from CenturyLink that terminates at the intersection of Hwy 133 and County Rd. 3. From this location, additional fiber or towers will need to be built to extend coverage throughout the Crystal River Valley. Based on the comparison, the successful development of the McClure Communication Site will allow for a much more cost effective solution for the Marble and the surrounding areas. However, if the McClure communications site is not approved, CenturyLink Lit Fiber may be the only alternative to extend coverage into Marble. A detailed analysis of these costs can be found in Attachment 8, 2.3 Coverage Analysis The following depicts the 13 drainages needing coverage. The drainages are outlined in blue lines and household density, from census data, is represented in black. 19

20 Figure 2: Drainages Mapped Coverage is a function of spectrum selected (e.g. 5.8GHz, 3.65GHz, 2.5GHz) and the number and placement of towers. 1. Wireless Spectrum Coverage 2. Tower Placement & Coverage Wireless Spectrum Coverage First, consider the target drainages outlined in blue lines above for coverage of the areas as targeted as unserved or underserved areas. The emphasis on comparison of spectrum serving areas within the blue lines, which may not be very distinct at this view level. More detailed views are provided in layered KMZ files provided. The following maps illustrate 5.8Ghz, 3.65Ghz and 2.5Ghz coverage. The 5.8GHz map is a base line coverage already available through current Wireless ISPs. While 5.8GHz covers some areas in the drainages, the broadband speeds are less than adequate supporting a range typically of 1.5Mbps-5Mbps. We anticipate the speeds supported in the 3.65GHz or 2.5GHz spectrum to be 25Mbps to 50 Mbps. 20

21 Figure 3: 5.8Ghz Coverage 5.8 GHz Figure 4: 3.65Ghz Coverage 21

22 Figure 5 2.5Ghz Coverage ISP s using a combination of current 3.65Ghz, future 3.5Ghz, and 2.5Ghz spectrum will reach 95% of unserved or underserved subscriber locations. An ISP may choose to offer services based on 3.65Ghz, pending CBRS 3.5Ghz to 3.7Ghz, or 2.5Ghz spectrum as best suited to a particular drainage, though the utilization of 2.5GHz ensures the maximum coverage. Table 2: 3.65Ghz vs 2.5Ghz Coverage Coverage 3.65GHz Coverage 2.5GHz Target Coverage Unserved Households Approximate Coverage Estimate to Target 75% 95% Coverage Unserved Households Total Coverage Potential Speed per Subscriber 25 Mbps 25-50Mbps Future Scalability per Subscriber 25-50Mbps Mbps Note, the maximum coverage is obtained 2.5Ghz in the analysis in Task 1 of 3,040 subscriber locations 22

23 2.3.2 Tower Placement & Coverage The maps above illustrate the estimated coverage using the planned Pitkin County DTRS microwave backhaul network assets plus two Pitkin County owned towers (Red Hill and Thomasville), and nine additional ISP relay towers strategically located within the target drainages. Table 3: Tower Placement Pikin County Owned LATDD LONGDD Ajax Crown Elephant Hunter Creek Jackrabbit Ridge Loge North Red Table Red Hill Relay Red Table Sunlight Thomasville Relay Red Hill Williams Hill New Sites LATDD LONGDD Elephant Relay Basalt Aggegation Point Marble Relay McClure McClure Crown Relay Ajax Relay Aspen Valley School Red Hill Relay Red Table Williams Hill Relay The Red Hill and Thomasville and nine new relay towers are required to provide service on a more uniform basis throughout the drainages by reducing the distance of tower ISP Last Mile equipment to subscribers. The additional relay towers are specified with approximate coordinates and cost estimates have been factored to include site location, tower engineering, and construction costs. The new towers are relay towers, meaning a tower that is linked to the primary DTRS Tower backhaul system. The relay towers are relatively small, 40 or less. Examples of the relay Towers proposed are included in Attachment 9. Additionally, each of the new relay towers will need sets of radios to extend to the primary DTRS backhaul network. We have obtained quotes from DTRS vendor, Nokia, and have included in our cost analysis adding Nokia radios to the DTRS backhaul network. 23

24 2.4 Network Design The following conceptual network figure shows the relationship of planned DTRS towers, proposed new ISP relay towers, and Aggregation Points for ISP to access the DTRS backhaul network. Figure 6: Network Backhaul Diagram Basalt Elephant ISP Relay Sunlight Crown ISP Relay Williams Hill ISP Relay Red Table DTRS Backhaul Ajax Pitkin Stub ISP Relay ISP New Relay ISP Aggregation Points North 40 Red Hill Wireless Links ISP Relay Loge Aspen Fiber Thomasville Marble McClure ISP Relay Hunter Creek Existing and new tower structures need to accommodate 3-6 feet of tower space for Fixed Wireless equipment provided by an ISP. Additional space is needed for expanding core DTRS backhaul capacity from current 400Mbps to a total capable capacity of 4.2Gbps. Also, existing towers may need reengineering or expansion for maximum effectiveness. In our survey of existing towers, we note that Ajax tower, is in a location surrounded by trees and potentially blocking line of site to drainages that are in need of service. It is possible to add an additional section to this tower to get above the tree line, but would require additional construction and cost considerations. 24

25 2.5 Cost Analysis Table 4: Additional Relay Tower and DTRS Backhaul Cost Analysis Elements: Existing DTRS Towers 10 Additional Pitkin-owned sites (Red Hill/Thomasville) 2 Additional Relay Towers / New Sites 9 Additional Relay Tower Costs $65K ea. $585,000 Additional Nokia Radios ea.: Thomasville, Red Hill, and 9 sets New ISP Relay Towers, and Basalt $552,000 Aggregation (12) Aggregation Point/ Basalt Colocation Facilities Upgrades $66,000 Total $1,203, Aggregation Points and Meet Me Centers A middle mile network dependent on a single path is subject to failure as Pitkin County experienced a prolonged outage in May 2015 effecting 911 Service, cell phones, landlines, cable and Internet service. We are recommending building redundancy into Aggregation Points to the DTRS backhaul network and redundant middle mile connectivity from Aspen to Glenwood Springs that can be shared by anchor institutions. We are suggesting middle mile fiber connections be established in the two main population centers in Aspen and Basalt. These locations will be referred to as Aggregation Points, and will allow for future expansion of the network regardless of the technologies used to deploy Last Mile services. Initially, the Aggregation Points in Aspen and Basalt will feed the DTRS wireless backhaul network for ISP s seeking to provide broadband service to the drainages. Connecting to the wireless backhaul network from two Aggregation Points creates redundant connectivity. Based on information gathered in Task 1, we feel it would be best to leverage existing carrier fiber assets for middle mile connectivity. The plan we have developed demonstrates the cost effectiveness of purchasing a lit service from existing carriers. The costs shown in this section can be related to the initial cost estimates from the Pitkin County broadband Phase 1 assessment where installing a new Fiber Optic trunk line from Glenwood Springs to Aspen carried a capital cost of roughly $11M. In our plan each middle mile connection uses a distinct carrier s fiber, and connects to a different location where Internet transit is available, such as Denver and Grand Junction. This would create diversity for the middle mile network connectivity to the DTRS and wireless backhaul network. The diagram below shows a potential middle mile network that feeds the two Aggregation Points. 25

26 Figure 7: Aggregation Points and Middle Mile The costs for this middle mile network are estimated below. Each segment could be provisioned with either 1Gbps or 10Gbps capacity and both options are presented. We have also expanded the costs out to include a 10-year total, however it is likely that the agreements for these circuits will be re-negotiated after 5 years, and there will be reduction in cost. Historically the cost of transport declines 10% to 15% per year on three or five year contracts. Pricing is also broken out into Non Recurring Charges (NRC) and Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) for each segment. Pricing represent current wholesale industry standard rates for the respective services. Table 5: 1Gbps Middle Mile Aggregation Point Costs Segment 1Gbps Fiber Owner NRC 1Gbps MRC 10 Yr. Total 1Gbps Aspen to Denver (Eastbound) Carrier C $1,000 $3,000 $361,000 1Gbps Basalt to Grand Junction (Westbound) Carrier B $1,000 $2,600 $313,000 Total 1Gbps+ Transport Solution $2,000 $5,600 $674,000 Table 6: 10Gbps Middle Mile Aggregation Point Costs Segment 10Gbps Fiber Owner NRC 10Gbps MRC 10 Yr. Total 10Gbps Aspen to Denver (Eastbound) Carrier C $1,000 $4,200 $500,000 10Gbps Basalt to Grand Junction (Westbound) Carrier B $1,000 $3,600 $433,000 Total 10Gbps Transport Solution $2,000 $7,800 $933,000 26

27 We feel that establishing a middle mile network to connect the Aggregation Points is only the first step in creating a truly sustainable Open Access Network. By expanding the concept of these Aggregation Points into Meet Me Centers, we feel Pitkin can provide additional benefits and services to the region. The middle mile network design surrounding the Meet Me Center concept involves using Lit Fiber transport from three distinct carriers to ensure protection against a single carrier s fiber cut or failure, and to have fiber optic connectivity between the Meet Me Centers. 1Gbps or 10Gbps capacity can be purchased as a lit service along each of these existing diverse fiber optic lines providing adequate capacity for the foreseeable future. Additional capacity can be made available as needed in the future by leasing additional services. However, it should be clear in the best value is 10Gbps. For ~40% more cost, purchasing 10Gbps obtains 10 times the transport capacity. The network design we have developed also includes involving the Glenwood Springs Community Broadband Network (CBN). By including CBN into the middle mile network design, additional economies of scale can be reached related to purchasing middle mile transport as well as Internet transit. The City of Glenwood springs has expressed interest in obtaining additional capacity on diverse fiber routes for their network, and we feel this is a tremendous opportunity to partner and create a mutually beneficial solution for middle mile transport throughout the region. Our proposed network design is illustrated below and demonstrates how diverse middle mile can be built up the Highway 82 corridor: 27

28 Figure 8: Meet Me Centers and Middle Mile Similar to the model for the Aggregation Points, the costs for this middle mile network are estimated below. Each segment could be provisioned with either 1Gbps or 10Gbps capacity and both options are presented. We have also expanded the costs out to include a 10-year total, however it is likely that the agreements for these circuits will be re-negotiated after 5 years, and a potential reduction may occur at that time (due to ever decreasing costs of telecom services) which is not reflected. Pricing is also broken out into Non Recurring Charges (NRC) and Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) for each segment. Pricing represent targeted industry standard rates for the respective services. Table 7: 1Gbps Middle Mile Meet Me Center Costs Segment 1Gbps Fiber Owner NRC 1Gbps MRC 10 Yr. Total 1Gbps Glenwood to Basalt Carrier A $1,000 $2,500 $301,000 1Gbps Glenwood to Basalt Carrier B $1,000 $2,400 $289,000 1Gbps Basalt to Aspen Carrier B $1,000 $2,400 $289,000 1Gbps Glenwood to Aspen Carrier C $1,000 $2,800 $337,000 1Gbps Glenwood to Denver (Eastbound) Carrier C $1,000 $3,000 $361,000 1Gbps Glenwood to Grand Junction (Westbound) Carrier B $1,000 $2,600 $313,000 Total 1Gbps+ Transport Solution $6,000 $15,700 $1,884,000 28

29 Table 8: 10Gbps Middle Mile Meet Me Center Costs Segment 10Gbps Fiber Owner NRC 10Gbps MRC 10 Yr. Total 10Gbps Glenwood to Basalt Carrier A $1,000 $3,800 $457,000 10Gbps Glenwood to Basalt Carrier B $1,000 $3,600 $433,000 10Gbps Basalt to Aspen Carrier B $1,000 $3,600 $433,000 10Gbps Glenwood to Aspen Carrier C $1,000 $3,800 $456,000 10Gbps Glenwood to Denver (Eastbound) Carrier C $1,000 $4,200 $500,000 10Gbps Glenwood to Grand Junction (Westbound) Carrier B $1,000 $3,600 $433,000 Total 10Gbps Transport Solution $6,000 $22,600 $2,712, Meet Me Center Option We are recommending that the two Aggregation Points previously discussed, ultimately become Meet Me Centers for a Pitkin County Open Access Network. A Meet Me Center will have the potential to provide additional benefits and opportunities to expand broadband in the region by: Aggregating multiple middle mile carriers in a carrier neutral location, creating a convergence point for diverse middle mile transport. o Larger middle mile circuits result in lower cost per Mbps Offering a common termination point for Last Mile fiber networks to obtain middle mile. o Local Anchor institutions can build fiber into the Meet Me Center o Existing county and local government fiber can utilize existing fiber and extend to Meet Me Centers. Providing collocation space for mission critical servers and networking equipment for community anchors. Reducing costs for Last Mile ISPs by allowing them to place their equipment in a secure and central location. o Direct access to diverse middle mile at the Meet Me Centers improves their business case. 29

30 Continuing to serve as the launch point for the wireless backhaul network to feed Last Mile wireless services to End Users. The physical requirements for a Meet Me Center should include the following components: Floor space suitable for telecom racks and network equipment: o o o Size of room will depend on anticipated number of carriers, collocated equipment, and number of anchor institutions served out of the meet me center. Typical required foot print for a single telecom rack is roughly Sq. Ft. A single telecom rack can hold enough equipment for a single carrier, and in some cases telecom racks can be split to accommodate multiple carriers. Reliable power with backup generator. Cooling system capable of maintaining an average room temperature of degrees Fahrenheit at maximum capacity. Entrance conduit to the Right of Way (ROW) to allow for fiber optic lines to be installed into the facility. Roof space (optional) for installation of Licensed Microwave antennas and other Fixed Wireless equipment. 24 Hour secured access for vendors and colocation customers. The costs associated with establishing these meet me center facilities will depend on existing infrastructure locations. Currently, we have identified meet me facility locations in Aspen, Basalt and Glenwood Springs. Aspen Meet Me Center In Aspen, it has been determined that the most logical location for a meet me center would be within the North 40 facility. This location will be host to one of the DTRS sites, so having a location directly on the planned DTRS microwave backhaul network would be ideal. This location will require the use of a room to host network equipment that includes the proper environmental controls, backup power, and access control. It is our understanding that most (if not all) of these already exist at this facility. We have included a small infrastructure readiness fee in the cost structure incase additional work is required. 30

31 Basalt Meet Me Center Basalt was chosen as a potential meet me center due to its geographic location and proximity to existing microwave and fiber networks and known connectivity concerns within the towns surrounding areas. The County has located two potential sites which would be ideal for hosting microwave backhaul equipment. In order to utilize these facilities as a true meet me center, some space will need to be allocated for use by Pitkin County. There may also need to be some infrastructure upgrades including, HVAC, Backup power, access control and conduits extended in order to bring in fiber optic connections. These costs are estimated in the table below as Infrastructure readiness. Some consideration may also need to be made for lease of the physical space on the premise. Glenwood Springs CBN The existing Glenwood Springs Community Broadband Network (CBN) plays host to an existing data center and a number of business, residential and anchor institution customers. The CBN was setup as an Open Access Network, and because of its geographic location, their data center could play an integral part of the ongoing regional broadband efforts in both the Roaring Fork watershed and Northwest Colorado. By looping in this location, additional economies of scale can be realized when purchasing bandwidth and middle mile transport. CBN has expressed interest in obtaining more diverse paths and they currently have fiber from multiple existing providers entering their facility. The participation of the CBN is not critical to the Pitkin County broadband project s success, but should be considered as it would have mutual benefits to all parties involved. For each of these meet me locations, we previously provided a budget for operating expenses. The following is a capital cost estimate per location. Glenwood Springs is an established meet me center already, so there are no capital costs. The Basalt location, as yet to determined, assumes building from scratch proper infrastructure in the facility. The Basalt infrastructure costs could be substantially lower depending on the site selection. The Aspen location is intended for the North 40 facility and we are advised only moderate modifications would be required. 31

32 Table 9: Meet Me Center Capital Costs 2.8 Conclusions The preliminary designs suggest the DTRS microwave backhaul network, DTRS towers, and additional ISP relay towers, can expand broadband service to 95% coverage in the target drainages. Based on significant cost differences between fiber and microwave, it does not make financial sense to build fiber to DTRS towers or ISP relay towers. Licensed microwave radios will have sufficient capacity to provide Aggregation Points for ISPs to connect to the DTRS wireless backhaul network. However, the DTRS wireless backhaul network will need to be expanded, likely to 2.1Gbps, in the early stages of deployment to support ISP backhaul transport to their Last Mile broadband services. In our survey of existing towers, we note that Ajax tower is in a location surrounded by trees and potentially blocking line of site to drainages that are in need of service. It is possible to add an additional section to the tower to get above the tree line, but would require additional construction. We recommend a 15 extension to the Ajax tower. In addition, the approval and development of the McClure site will greatly reduce the costs associated with providing broadband services in the Crystal River valley and into the town of Marble. By expanding the concept of Aggregation Points into meet me centers with diverse fiber paths between Aspen and Glenwood Springs, we feel Pitkin County can achieve substantial improvements in reliability and performance for itself and anchor institutions. 32

33 Task 3: Develop a Deployment Plan with an anticipated rollout strategy, scope and timing of implementing the designed network. 3.0 Overview Based on the findings from Task 1 (Asset Review), Task 2 (Preliminary Network Design) and the County Commissioners support serving 95% of unserved drainages, we have developed a staged deployment plan comprised of three key elements: (a) the county s deployment and of public safety system to DTRS; (b) the level of interest and engagement from targeted stakeholders; and (c) funding availability. Our deployment plan addresses the following areas: 3.1 Deployment Stages 1. Deployment Stages 2. Service Deployment Stages and Drainages 3. Service Deployment Costs by Stages 4. Service Deployment Costs by County 5. Funding Sources 6. Evaluation of Demand and ISP Pricing 7. Service Deployment - Meet Me Center 8. Network Operation Considerations 9. Aggregation Point Model 10. Meet Me Center Model 11. Public Private Partnerships 12. Community Outreach & Demand Aggregation 13. Summary 14. Next Steps It is recommended that deployment of network design be rolled out in a three stages. Stage 1: The first stage of deployment considers the current DTRS plan for 6 tower sites to be operational with an integrated wireless backhaul network in the spring of We recommend building one of the two recommended Aggregation Points for ISP access to the DTRS microwave backhaul network in Stage 1 and allow ISPs to start providing broadband services. The expectation is an ISP would be responsible for bringing their own middle mile transport to a DTRS microwave backhaul Aggregation Point. 33

34 Stage 2: The second stage is based on completion of the DTRS network in the spring of 2017 through the fall of As new DTRS towers are brought on line with wireless backhaul to Aggregation Points, ISP s can offer broadband service with more coverage in drainages. We propose resolving status of McClure tower or implement an alternative in Stage 3: A third stage is proposed to overlap with stage two for the fall 2016 through the fall of This stage is intended to include community outreach for determining demand to build additional ISP relay towers and support to build meet me centers for sharing redundant middle mile among anchor institutions. We are recommending a 2-3-year implementation. 3.2 Service Deployment Stages and Drainages The following table associates tower sites and drainages with stages. ` Table 10: Deployment Stages and Drainages 34

35 3.3 Service Deployment Costs by Stages Table 11: Deployment Costs per Stage Stage 1 Spring 2017 Drainage Site Site Type LATDD LONGDD HH County Rebuilt Pikin Towers New Towers Meet Me Microwav e Equipme nt D2-D3-D4-D5 Ajax E Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D6-D8-D7-D9-D10-D11 Crown E ,779 Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D2-D3-D7 Loge E Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D3 North 40 (Aggegation Point) E Pitkin? $0 $12,000 $46,000 $58,000 D11-D12 Sunlight E Garfield? $0 $0 $0 $0 D4-D5-D6-D7-D9-D10 Williams Hill E Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 4, ,000 46,000 58,000 Stage 2 May - Fall 2017 through Fall 2018 Drainage Site Site Type LATDD LONGDD HH County Rebuilt Pikin Towers New Towers Meet Me Microwav e Equipme D8-D9 Basalt & Glenwood Springs (Meet Me) E ,134 Pitkin $0 $0 $54,000 $0 $54,000 D11 Carbondale (Crown Castle Site) E ,512 Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D11-D12-D13 Elephant E Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D3 Hunter Creek E Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D5 Jackrabbit Ridge E ,695 Pitkin? $0 $0 $0 $0 D8 Red Table E Eagle? $0 $0 $46,000 $46,000 Total 5,625 0 $0 $54,000 $46,000 $100,000 Stage 3 Mat - Fall 2017 through Fall 2018 Drainage Site LATDD LONGDD HH County Rebuilt Pikin Towers New Towers Meet Me Microwav e Equipme D2 Ajax Relay N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D1-D2-D3 Aspen Valley School N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D8-D9 Crown Relay N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D11-D12 Elephant Relay 1 N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D5 Loge Relay 1 N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D13 Marble Relay McClure N Gunnison $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D13 McClure N Gunnison $0 $0 $0 $46,000 $46,000 D8 Red Hill Relay Red Table N Eagle $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D8 Thomasville Relay Red N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 D5 Williams Hill Relay N Pitkin $0 $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 Total 1,286 0 $585,000 $0 $460,000 $1,045,000 Grand Total 11,152 $0 $585,000 $66,000 $552,000 $1,203,000 Total Total Total 3.4 Service Deployment Costs by County Table 12: Deployment Costs per County Costs By County County New Towers Meet Me Microwave Equipment Total Stage 1 Pitkin $0 $12,000 $46,000 $58,000 Stage 2 Pitkin $0 $54,000 $0 $54,000 Stage 3 Pitkin $455,000 $0 $322,000 $777,000 Total $455,000 $66,000 $368,000 $889,000 Costs By County County New Towers Meet Me Microwave Equipment Total Stage 1 Eagle $0 $0 $0 $0 Stage 2 Eagle $0 $0 $46,000 $46,000 Stage 3 Eagle $65,000 $0 $46,000 $111,000 Total $65,000 $0 $92,000 $157,000 Costs By County County New Towers Basic Meet Microwave Me Equipment Total Stage 1 Garfield $0 $0 $0 $0 Stage 2 Garfield $0 $0 $0 $0 Stage 3 Garfield $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Costs By County County New Towers Basic Meet Microwave Me Equipment Total Stage 1 Gunnison $0 $0 $0 $0 Stage 2 Gunnison $0 $0 $0 $0 Stage 3 Gunnison $65,000 $0 $92,000 $157,000 Total $65,000 $0 $92,000 $157,000 Grand Total $585,000 $66,000 $552,000 $1,203,000 35

36 3.5 Funding Sources We do not believe the private sector, defined as an ISP, is willing to fund the costs of the recommended new relay towers. An ISP would find the ROI very difficult to offer services with this cost burden. In addition, because these towers are an integral part of the DTRS backhaul system, it is a practical operations advantage to have this part of the system owned and operated by a Pitkin County. Though presently uncertain, there will likely be DOLA grants available in the 2017 and 2018 grant cycles for the range of expenditures proposed, and this is our primary funding recommendation. Notwithstanding, the County good always fund through general funds or a bond. The exception would be grant support from the Colorado Broadband Fund that is open to ISP s and other qualified service providers. We expect qualified service providers will investigate grants for Last Mile equipment in the circumstance they cannot meet their minimum number of subscribers for a ROI on Last Mile equipment. 36

37 3.6 Evaluation of Demand and Pricing To meet the goal of servicing a high percentage of the unserved in sparsely populated drainages, the recommended additional towers and a minimum of subscribers per tower will be needed for an ISP to achieve a reasonable ROI. A minimum of subscribers are typically needed for an ISP to achieve a ROI with investment required in Last Mile equipment, exclusive of tower construction and backhaul costs. Assuming minimum subscribers are met per tower location, and zero or minimal tower rental and backhaul fees, an ISP should offer broadband services comparable to service options available in local urban areas. Meeting these criteria, we expect ISP s to offer the following broadband service pricing. Table 13: ISP Broadband Pricing Service Residential & Home Business Enterprise Dedicated Up to 25Mbps $65.00 $ Up to 50Mbps $97.50 $ Installation Cost (one Time) $ $ Voice - VOIP (Unlimited LD) $19.99 $29.99 Voice - VOIP (Local Only) $9.99 $19.95 Lifeline or Tribal Discount 40% N/A This plan suggests a total potential of 11,152 households possible to serve. We would expect a take rate as high as 70% in drainage areas (2,100 households) and a lower take rate in urban areas in the range of 15% (1,200) for a total of 3,300 or a total take rate of ~30%. Note, given the objective to serving unserved drainage areas the county could place conditions on ISP s to prioritize the unserved drainages versus larger urban areas. Urban areas could be prioritized for only anchor institutions without high speed broadband options, or an ISP could be unrestricted in urban areas with condition of serving all of the target drainages first. 3.7 Service Deployment - Meet Me Center We recommend outreaching to community anchor institutions to determine interest and demand for sharing a 1Gbps or 10Gbps redundant Internet transport. We think this is probably a 3 to 6-month process that can coincide with Stage 1. 37

38 A primary consideration is whether the recurring costs for 1Gbps or 10Gbps can be offset by replacing current costs of stakeholders such as Pitkin County or in combination with other anchor institutions. The number and type of participates will determine cost effectiveness of the meet me centers and whether 1Gbps or 10Gbps redundant transport is justified. The other major consideration will be the operating roles among stakeholders of the meet me centers. We outline a number of options consistent with objectives of Pitkin County to leverage public private partnerships. 3.8 Network Operation Considerations Several regions around the State are attempting to achieve similar goals as Pitkin County and improve broadband within their respective region. Much of what is being done to achieve this is new, and hasn t been done before. Complicate this with the varying characteristics of each region such as geography, population, demographics, and existing infrastructure, and you quickly realize that there isn t a single solution that can be applied across every region. However, we do feel that out of each regional solution we have seen, there are some common threads and feel confident that there are three types of functional interactions to a successful strategy: Network Owner, Network Operator, and Service Providers. This approach makes it easy to define each entity s role in the project. Some examples of how each of these roles can be broken down are below: Network Owner Lead broadband development throughout community Aggregate demand to reduce costs of middle mile transport Build a robust Open Access Network with state of the art equipment and capabilities Provide low cost bandwidth and WAN solutions to its members and Service Providers Encourage competition in the broadband marketplace to help improve options for broadband access Facilitate collaboration among all entities within the region to reduce barriers to entry for broadband participants Assist with permitting, accessing rights of way or other community assets that can be used Advocate for dig-once policies and installation of conduit designated for broadband use 38

39 Develop and facilitate grant opportunities for funding Network Operator: Provide physical and operational support of the network assets including: Programming of all network equipment Provisioning of service for new connections to the network Scheduled backups of all network configurations Active monitoring on all equipment Implement Out of band management for all core network components 24/7 Network Operations Support (NOC) Support Coordination and dispatch of remote hands and/or field technicians IP management and allocation tracking Ticketing system Outage notifications and alerts Utilization reporting and graphing Fiber optic plant locating, repairs and maintenance Provide impartial support of network resources to Service Providers Manage middle mile infrastructure and Meet Me Centers Assist with the procurement and deployment of all middle mile connectivity Service Providers: Offer best in class Internet services leveraging the network infrastructure provided by Pitkin County. Build out and operate Last Mile Fixed Wireless networks Connect Anchor Institutions to Meet Me Centers Invoice End Users directly, and provide all typical support and billing functions as the provider Work with Network Operator as backhaul provider Build laterals into the Pitkin County network to support fiber optic expansion throughout the community when applicable Distinctions between stakeholder roles in performing these three functions may vary by objectives by Stage of deployment. 39

40 3.9 Aggregation Point Model The role of Network Owner and Network Operator are minimal and only require the following: Aggregation Point locations Wireless or fiber connection to DTRS Microwave Backhaul Network Middle Mile The towers and DTRS microwave backhaul network should be managed by Pitkin County. Tower management would require vetting potential service providers that inquire about colocation at all tower locations, negotiations of contracts, managing placement of equipment on towers, cost of access to the towers and potential equipment requirements. This would include all microwave radios that carry Pitkin County traffic throughout the network and expansion to support demand in the drainages and to the Aggregation Points for ISP s in Aspen and Basalt. Aggregation Point locations should not require full time management or a network operator. However, the management tasks required of Pitkin County would include providing colocation space and cross connections to the DTRS microwave backhaul network. It would be up to the individual ISPs to procure middle mile transport and Internet Transit. This should be a limited burden on the existing Pitkin staff supporting the to provide cross connections to the DTRS backhaul system Meet Me Center Model Service deployment for the expanded meet me center option will require all stakeholder functions: Network Owner, Network Operator, and Service Provider be defined. Pitkin County will not be providing the last mile wireless or fiber network, but would be expanding network ownership from the DTRS microwave backhaul network to redundant middle mile fiber transport to the potential benefit of many stakeholders. Pitkin County has stated they do not want to be a Service Provider. Consequently, we are outlining operating models on variations of public private partnerships that Pitkin County is not the primary owner Public Private Partnerships By the very nature of a partnership, a fair and equitable relationship must be achieved. This is ever more apparent and necessary in a Public Private Partnership (PPP). The primary goals of each party must be realized by everyone, and each party must work collectively to attain them. Some examples of PPPs other broadband initiatives have taken include: 40

41 Private Design, Build and Operate for Public use Joint Venture Design, Public Build and operate Joint Venture Design, Public Build, and Private Operate Public Design and Build, Private Operate Public Design, Build and Operate, open access to Private Each of these models have pros and cons to consider for each party, and the right decision depends on the specific project, goals, and various other factors. For Pitkin County, we would recommend some sort of Public or Joint Venture relationship for the Design and Build components, with a private partner to Operate the network. This fits in well with the 3 tiered model previously discussed (Network Own, Network Manage, Network Provide). Compensation for network Operations will depend on the size, scope and overall complexity of the resulting network. Network Operator Fees for these services can be structured in a number of ways including: Flat rate based on number of nodes or users serviced Percentage based on the total revenues Wholesale based on selling services to Service Providers We understand the importance of creating a sustainable model that has ample opportunity to grow and expand, and the Network Operator should come up with reasonable fees that help allow this to occur using the pro-forma and demographic data provided by Pitkin County. Because of the variances in each of these models, it is difficult to estimate what the fees will be. We suggest that Pitkin County release an RFP for private partners to provide Network Operations services. Based on these responses, the most reasonable model can be used to satisfy the overall objectives of Pitkin County Community Outreach & Demand Aggregation We propose a community outreach plan to start a minimum of 3 months to 6 months before ISP s start service offerings, or new tower construction begins, in order to measure demand and determine the most efficient course of deployment. Starting with Stage 1 an ISP for wireless services should utilize a web based portal for measuring and aggregating demand into zones of service deployment. The vision is a web based tool the community accesses and registers their interest in a zone see example Attachment 10. As registered interest builds, and minimum subscriber thresholds met, an ISP will invest in Last Mile equipment placement on towers. The methodology can also apply to establish priority of building new towers. Aggregate Drainages or Portions of Drainages into Zones. Establish Take Rate - Online Service Registration 41

42 Automatic Tracking Prioritize Deployment The web base tool could be expanded to measure demand from business or residential communities for fiber development or aggregation at meet me centers. An example would be setting zones of communities or business districts. When a level of interest is established, private service providers could compete to building fiber and offer service. In this expanded use of the tool Pitkin County, or Network Operator, should operate the web tool as a neutral party. If provided by ISP there would be no charge to the county. If provided by Pitkin County/Network Operator the following operating costs for the service would be composed of the following elements provided by COS Systems: Table 14: COS Systems Cost Structure The cost of this service from hosted provider has three elements: 1) the initial set up fee, 2) monthly subscriptions of registered locations, and 3) one-time fee per sign up in connected zones. In the case of unserved or underserved locations in the drainages we expect to manage up to 2,200 service locations from October 2016 to October 2018 year. In the case of using the tool to facilitate fiber to communities the total locations would be in range of 10,

43 Table 15: Community Outreach and Aggregation Cost Summary 3.13 Summary One Time and Subscription Fees Drainages Only Total Population One Time Set Up Fee $7,500 $7,500 Registered Locations 2,500 10,000 Monthly Subscription $2,400 $3,800 Two Year Monthly Subscription $57,600 $91,200 Take Rate 2,200 3,300 Sign Up Fee $10 Take Rate $22,000 $33,000 Total Two Year Cost $87,100 $131,700 Pitkin County has committed funding to upgrade the public safety network to DTRS. We recommend that the DTRS microwave backhaul network be utilized and expanded to create an Open Access Network that ISPs can use to provide broadband services to the most unserved or underserved drainages. Pitkin County would provide transport services over the excess capacity of the DTRS microwave backhaul network from two basic Aggregation Points for ISP s access to deliver broadband service to and tower space to co-locate their LTE fixed wireless subscriber equipment. Given our fiber asset review, there are multiple fiber paths from Aspen to Glenwood Springs not previously identified, and we suggest leasing fiber to build a redundant 1Gbps or 10Gbps transport network creating Open Access Network meet me centers (Aspen, Basalt and Glenwood Springs) with IP transit provided in Grand Junction and Denver Next Steps 1. Prepare grant applications for relay towers to DOLA. 2. Select qualified ISP(s) through RFI/RFP process. 3. Finalize stakeholder roles for Network Operator and Service Providers in public private partnership. 4. Start a Community Outreach of anchor institution interest in participating in meet me center option. 43

44 Attachment 1 Drainages Table 16: Drainage Detail Drainage East of Aspen Castle Creek Maroon Creek Lenado Woody Creek / Capitol Creek Snowmass Creek Frying Pan Emma Sopris Creek Missouri Heights Crystal River Distance from Existing Infrastructure 4 miles Downtown Aspen to Popcorn Lane via Hwy miles Aspen Chapel to Lower Express Creek via Castle Creek Rd 8 miles Aspen Chapel to T Lazy 7 Ranch via Maroon Creek Rd 30 miles Woody Creek Rd and Little Woody Creek 16 miles Upper and Lower River Roads 5 miles Old Snowmass Rd to Rose Spur & Elk Creek via Capitol Creek 7 miles Old Snowmass Rd to Shield-O- Mesa via Snowmass Creek 28 miles Basalt to Norrie Colony E of Thomasville via Frying Pan Road 7 miles Emma schoolhouse to Bear Ridge Road via E Sopris Creek 12 miles Hwy 82 to Hwy 133 via W Sopris Creek & Prince Creek Households 44 Notes East of N. Star Lane to Difficult Campground (Additional 10 if you include N Star subdivision 87 Music School to Toklat & Lower Express Creek 222 Highlands to T Lazy 7 38 Woody Creek Road to Lenado and Little Woody Creek Rd from Woody Creek Post Office 238 Woody Creek Post Office to Snowmass Conoco 253 Old Snowmass Rd and everything W of the T 106 Old Snowmass Rd and everything E of the T Household numbers from E & W Sopris Creek intersection to Bear Ridge Road 52 Backside of Sopris from Hwy 133 to Emma 15 miles 781 Upper Cattle Creek Rd (N of El Hwy 82 & El Jebel Road to Hwy 82 & Cattle Creek Rd 16 Miles KOA south to CR 3 via Hwy miles Marble Hwy 133 to East of Beaver Lake 412 via CR 3 Total 3112 Jebel Road) to Cattle Creek Road & Hwy 82 NW of Carbondale 431 Crystal River Corridor along Hwy 133 From Hwy 133 & Hwy 3 intersection to the Beaver Lake east of Marble 44

45 Attachment 2 Fiber Assets For public version of report proprietary vendor fiber locations has been redacted, though data is provided as separate documents and in KMZ files under non-disclosure agreements. All routes combined: Figure 9: Combined Fiber Assets Redacted Image 45

46 CenturyLink Figure 10: CenturyLink Fiber Redacted Image Comcast Figure 11: Comcast Fiber Redacted Image 46

47 Cedar Networks Figure 12: Cedar Networks Fiber Redacted Image 47

48 Redacted Image 48

49 City of Aspen/Pitkin Fiber Figure 13: City of Aspen Fiber Redacted Image Aspen Ski Co. Fiber Figure 14: Aspen Ski Company Fiber Redacted Image 49

50 Attachment 3 Anchor Institutions with Fiber The following is a snapshot of collated data collected on anchor institutions. The provider of fiber is generally referenced under the Trans/Technology column. Full data is available in worksheets provided electronically. Table 17: Anchor Institution List 50

51 51

52 Attachment 4 DTRS Towers Surveyed Ajax Communications Site: The Ajax tower is sufficient to accommodate backhaul equipment. In order to support access points, to provide service to the surrounding area, sector arrays would need to be installed on the tower. The tower is in a location surrounded by trees and potentially blocking line of site to drainages that are in need of service. While the 2.5 Ghz. and the 3.5 Ghz frequencies operate well with near line of sight environments, having an obstacle directly in the line of an access point is not ideal and will reduce the coverage area significantly. It is possible to add an additional section to the tower to get above the 52

53 tree line, but would require additional construction. We did not have permission to climb the tower, nor ground support to assess the situation from atop the tower. This would mostly affect the Castle Creek Drainage to the West and South down that drainage. It would also affect the East of Aspen East down Hwy. 82. A tower climb would be necessary to determine whether or not this could be overcome at the highest point of the tower. Access to this site will be relatively easy due to the chair lift operations throughout most of the year directly to the site. 53

54 Crown Communications Site: This communications site has excellent views that are near 360 degrees. If service were to be provided from this location, it would be highly used because of its proximity to multiple drainages. There is sufficient space on all three towers for the amount of potential access points needed to provide service to the surrounding area. The near tower, in the picture, appears to have an ISP on it. The equipment there is installed in close proximity to other access points and directly to the tower. It is recommended that a sector array be installed to separate the equipment and reduce wind load. It is also highly recommended that this site be fed by its own licensed backhaul, from an Aggregation Point in Basalt. Access to this site should not be too difficult because the road has homes that are spread throughout the area. Barriers to Site (It does not look down into one of the key drainages East Sopris Creek. East Sopris may need a relay tower added to the design. 54

55 Loge Communications Site: The Loge site will be a new site. The top of the hill is a great vantage point into Castle Creek, Maroon Creek and into the Snowmass Village area. We question whether the new tower will be constructed on the hill where the current towers are located, or at the bottom of the hill. The Pitkin County backhaul design includes its own backhaul link to feed the wireless network. This will help alleviate and offload traffic that would be directly connected to the communications site. 55

56 Williams Hill Communications Site: 56

57 The Williams site will be completely redone. Currently there are smaller towers and permanent nonpenetrating mounts surrounding the tower location. There appears to be a current ISP at this site with several licensed backhauls. One would assume that if Pitkin County were to provide transport to this location, the ISP would be interested. For this reason, it would be recommended that a licensed backhaul from a Meet Me Center to be installed at some point to offload local traffic to this site. The Williams Hill site is also an excellent candidate to provide services to multiple drainages within the area and has a 360-degree view of the surrounding area. Access to the site is not difficult in the late Spring and Summer months, but would more than likely require snowmobiles in the winter. 57

58 Attachment 5 RFTA Conduit and Right of Ways Researched as a potential path for additional fiber Middle Mile up the Hwy 82 Corridor 42 Miles continuous path is completed. In general, not suitable option as path is used by Centurylink and overbuilding would not add diversity. Phillip Anschutz, largest shareholder of Union Pacific Railway and owner of Southern Pacific Telecom (later Qwest), installed conduit and fiber optics along the route. In 1997, the ROW corridor was purchased by consortium of local governments Currently managed by RFTA, as it is a transportation corridor Fiber and conduit still exist as utility easements RFTA believes that there are 4 conduits along entire path CenturyLink is using 2 of the 4 conduits Working to determine what ownership/use rights are on the path Collecting all publically available documents regarding transfer from Anschutz to RFTA RFTA is currently having attorneys look into the current ownership and use rights of conduit along the trail Confusion due to multiple changes in ownership, and lack of specific documentation pertaining to this matter RFTA agreed to provide summary of findings when completed RFTA is interested in monetizing these conduits if they have rights to use Figure 15: Sample Page from Original Rio Grande Trail Telecom Design 58

59 Attachment 6 Holy Cross Wireless Assets Holy Cross Energy does not have fiber, but redundant Microwave ring All radios are FCC Licensed Tower sites may be leased to public entities Requires approval from land owners Crosses into Eagle County and I-70 Corridor (Eagle/Avon) Figure 16: Holy Cross Energy Microwave Network +Holy Cross Poles are provided in KMZ files. 59

60 Attachment 7 Dark Fiber Vs. Licensed Microwave for Frying Pan The table below is a comparison of constructing Microwave (Wireless) and fiber into a single drainage. It is important to illustrate the cost difference between the two options and why we recommended that wireless would be the most cost effective solution based on low density customer base. Microwave: Includes utilizing the existing Pitkin County owned towers at Red Hill and Thomasville for service providers to deliver service to subscribers down the Frying Pan drainage. This option does not include potential site upgrades that may be needed. Fiber: Includes building fiber from the Basalt Meet Me Center on existing Holy Cross utility poles down the Frying Pan drainage. This option does not include how services are delivered from the utility poles to the subscribers or perfecting right-of-way agreements with individual landowners. The contrast, in total cost, is dramatic to bring microwave into existing Pitkin County assets versus building fiber into and down the Frying Pan. Frying Pan Fiber versus Microwave Example In order to service the residents within the Frying Pan Drainage connectivity must be established to the two Access Towers, Red Hill and Thomasville Table 18: Fraying Pan Microwave versus Fiber Elements: Microwave Fiber Fiber Build* Red Hill N/A $2,293,675 Fiber Build* add Thomasville N/A $2,005,920 Engineering N/A $214,980 Fiber Electronics N/A $75,000 Microwave Link to Red Hill $46,000 N/A Microwave Link to Thomasville $46,000 N/A Estimated Site upgrade costs $130,000 N/A Total Estimated Costs $222,000 $4,589,575 *Fiber build costs are estimated at $40/ft. for underground construction, and $15/ft. for overhead construction. These costs are based on similar fiber optic build projects with similar geography. The pricing may not include all applicable make ready or joint use fees from the local electric utility. 60

61 Attachment 8 Licensed Microwave vs. Fiber to Marble The table below is a comparison of constructing Microwave (Wireless) using the proposed McClure Pass tower and building fiber into Marble. Microwave: Includes utilizing the existing Pitkin County owned tower at Elephant Hill, and building the proposed McClure tower site. From McClure, a microwave will be used to feed a common location within the town of Marble (firehouse). Costs of distribution from that location is not included in this comparison. Fiber: Includes building fiber from the intersection of Hwy 133 and County Rd. 3, to Marble on existing Holy Cross utility poles. This option does not include how services are delivered from the utility poles to the subscribers, and only feeds a common location within the town of Marble (firehouse). This option does not include how services are delivered from the utility poles to the subscribers or perfecting right-of-way agreements with individual landowners. Marble Backhaul Comparison In order to service Marble, backhaul must be established at a location within town. Below is comparison of the two options for establishing connectivity into Marble. Table 19: Marble Backhaul Comparison Elements: Microwave Fiber 1Gbps Fiber lease to Co. Rd. 3 (10yr.) N/A $288,000 Fiber Build to Marble N/A $477,065 Engineering N/A $38,253 Fiber Electronics N/A $75,000 Microwave Link Elephant to McClure $46,000 N/A Microwave Link McClure to Marble $46,000 N/A Estimated Site build and upgrade costs $130,000 N/A Total Estimated Costs $222,000 $878,318 *Fiber build costs are estimated at $40/ft. for underground construction, and $15/ft. for overhead construction. These costs are based on similar fiber optic build projects with similar geography. The pricing may not include all applicable make ready or joint use fees from the local electric utility. 61

62 Attachment 9 New Tower Examples The recommended tower expansion in drainages would be ~ 40 simple pole or lattice structures. The picture below is an example of a communications site that can be constructed with a small footprint. We realize and understand the difficulty to approve large communication sites. This site was built for the Town of Telluride as a relay to the Sheriff s department. A pole was used rather than a tower in this example. There are multiple configurations that can be used depending on the needs of the site. Figure 17: Relay Tower Examples The picture of the tower below was constructed in the Grand Junction area and is an example of a similar site as above, but with tower sections instead of a pole. It shows that large communication sites are not necessarily needed depending on the technology that is used and the type of services being offered. 62

63 The picture below is a full vertical profile of typical section tower of 40 height. The picture below is a full vertical profile of section tower of less than 40 height in Telluride community with painting to better camouflage or blend into community. 63

64 Attachment 10 Web Based Portal and Community Outreach The following is an example of a web based tool the community accesses and registers their interest, provides status of wireless or fiber availability, and provides an ongoing a community outreach tool. Figure 18: Web Portal for Community Outreach Registrations are aggregated into zones and reported to make informed decisions whether the threshold has been met for county to build relay towers of ISPs will invest in last mile equipment placement on towers. The methodology can also apply to establish zones of community interest in fiber builds. 64

65 65