Strategic Analysis of Community Broadband Offering for Pelican Bay

Transcription

Strategic Analysis
of
Community Broadband
Offering
for
Pelican Bay, Florida
Strategic Business Plan
for
Community Based Broadband
Pelican Bay Foundation
Prepared by:
5524 North County Line Road
Auburn, Indiana 46706
Phone
260.627.8888
Fax
260.627.8102
www.spectrumeng.com
Authorized Signature
Acknowledgements
The following individuals and organizations contributed greatly to the updating and
revising of this document with materials, pricing and elements critical to the analysis
conducted as of June 2012.
The Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
Collier County
Adtran
Aurora Networks
Baller Herbst Law Group
Calix
Corning
Cisco - Scientific Atlanta
Render Vanderslice Associates
TE Connectivity
This cost/benefit analysis uses many assumptions derived from a variety of sources. The analysis has two (2) purposes;
first is to present a plausible outcome of the proposed infrastructure project, second, is to provide a guide if Pelican Bay
were to pursue such interests. Spectrum Engineering Corporation does not warrant the analysis, the assumptions, or the
success of the communications offerings.
This cost/benefit analysis is proprietary and is for the exclusive use of Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. and Spectrum
Engineering Corporation. Release to any other party without the expressed consent of both of these parties is prohibited.
Plans fail for the lack of counsel but succeed with many advisors.
- King Solomon
Community Fiber Optic Network
-A-
Strategic Analysis [Acknowledgements]
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 Background and Perspective ____________________________________________________ 5 Objective ___________________________________________________________________ 6 Purpose and Scope of the Study _________________________________________________ 6 Plausible Strategies ___________________________________________________________ 7 Incumbent’s Existing Networks _________________________________________________ 10 Pelican Bay’s Fiber Optic Network ______________________________________________ 11 What Other Communities in SWFL Are Doing _____________________________________ 13 Potential Providers __________________________________________________________ 14 Business Model & Financial Analysis .............................................................................. 18 Basis of Business Model and Costs ______________________________________________ 18 Mission Statement __________________________________________________________ 18 Business Plan Metrics ....................................................................................................... 19 Technology Assumptions _____________________________________________________ 19 Business Model Assumptions __________________________________________________ 19 Cash Flow Elements .............................................................................................................. 20 Sensitivity Analysis __________________________________________________________ 28 How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? ................................................................................... 29
What Technologies Should Be Considered? Why FTTP?................................................. 32 Wireless ___________________________________________________________________ 33 Satellite ___________________________________________________________________ 35 Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) ___________________________________________________ 35 Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) and Cable Modems ______________________________________ 36 Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) ____________________________ 37 Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) __________________________________________________ 38 2
Technology Determinants ................................................................................................. 40 Why Fiber to the Premise? Won’t Wireless Obsolete Everything Else? _________________ 40 Market Analysis ................................................................................................................ 41 Market Demand Environment _________________________________________________ 41 Market Drivers .................................................................................................................. 43 Pelican Bay Demographics ____________________________________________________ 43 Market Demand ____________________________________________________________ 45 What are the Risks? __________________________________________________________ 47 Legal and Regulatory _________________________________________________________ 53 Large Incumbent Service Providers ______________________________________________ 54 Organizational Structure & Recommendations ____________________________________ 55 3
Appendix 1 – 2012 Community Survey Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary Site Survey Access Electronics Estimate Core Switch / Router Estimate Core Servers Estimate Head End Building Estimate Mainline Fiber Construction Estimate Wholesale Internet Estimate Transport Electronics Estimate Monthly Cash Flow – Loan Model Annual Cash Flow – Loan Model Amortization Schedule Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Loan Model Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash Monthly Cash Flow – Cash Model Annual Cash Flow – Cash Model Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Cash Model Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 7 – Project Schedule 4
Introduction
“Broadband provides Americans with high-speed Internet access
connections that improve the Nation’s economic productivity and offer lifeenhancing applications, such as distance learning, remote medical
diagnostics, and the ability to work from the home more effectively.”1
- President George W. Bush, April 26, 2004
Background and Perspective
Today, communities such as Pelican Bay are competing in a global marketplace. To
communicate within and outside of the community requires a level of ever-expanding
diverse and reliable information services, with the core being connectivity to the Internet.
Simple access is no longer sufficient; speed and expandability, driven by new
demanding applications, are driving the pursuit of broadband throughout cities and
towns. Bill Gates commented, “The Internet is becoming the town square for the global
village of tomorrow.”
No community understands this better than Pelican Bay; the decision to consider making
the necessary investment and offer such services came only after local incumbent
providers refused to offer any viable solutions.
Amenities such as walking trails, parks, beaches, club houses, restaurants, high speed
Internet, pools, etc. contribute to the quality of live, marketability, and intrinsic value of
properties. Conversely, aged or poorly maintained and expensive facilities breed
frustration within the customer. Poor customer service also erodes value.
As our young people age, the demand for Internet broadband will become a significant
driver in the decision making process of many goods and services. If communities
cannot deliver viable broadband access to its residents, they will be passed over for
more modern alternatives. They will look for communities which would allow them
opportunities to telecommute and provide access to online training, educational
resources, medical support and research, and an enhanced quality of life.
Reliance for providing such access and means to the Internet, as well as related
informational services, has fallen on the incumbent providers. However, with all the
benefits offered by today’s wired technologies, the first question is why they have not
elected to put forth the investment in technology upgrades? Put simply, the size of the
market is an important component of these conglomerates’ profit/risk models.
Unfortunately, the large incumbent investment model does not favor small scale
communities such as Pelican Bay.
Such is where Pelican Bay sits today; served by relatively low bandwidth via shared DSL
and cable modem service, complemented by wireless (via satellite) coverage. These
duopolistic providers, which are among the largest in the U.S. will have little reason to
invest unless realized loss of market share, or at least the very real threat of such.
1
Report presented by President George W. Bush on April 26, 2004, as summarized in “A New Generation
of American Innovation”, published by the White House, pg. 11.
5
Objective
Whereas: Pelican Bay is a community that desires to provide world-class services to its
members – both residential and commercial.
Whereas: The communications needs of those members (Internet, voice and video), as
measured by bandwidth required to support their activities, have expanded rapidly in the
last five years and are likely to continue to expand at an almost exponential rate.
Whereas: The communications networks in the Community are aged and cannot
properly support the large files that people regularly exchange, high-definition television,
nor the video streaming that is so common today.
Whereas: A fiber-optic network would support the growing communications needs of
members both through a high quality signal as well as broader bandwidth.
Whereas: A network capable of providing high-quality, high-speed Internet to every
Pelican Bay building would support the community with an updated image and should
lead to increased resale values.
Whereas: A network that could carry Internet, voice and video services would also be
able to handle services such as home security, water leak detection, telemedicine, etc.
Whereas: Pelican Bay has contacted a number of potential providers. The nationally
positioned incumbents have been very reluctant to update their networks. Local
providers demand a ten-year exclusive contract to commit capital for a complete
overbuild.
Therefore: Pelican Bay should develop a strategy to incent competition by reducing
barriers to entry and control the supply chain in order to improve customer service,
quality and breadth of service offerings, and reduce price.
Purpose and Scope of the Study
The Pelican Bay Foundation created the Ad-Hoc Media Infrastructure Committee in the
Spring of 2011 to review Pelican Bay’s current networks and make recommendations for
future capabilities.
Spectrum Engineering was engaged in April, 2012 with the following assignments,
culminating with this report:
 Identify viable strategies to control the communications services supply chain
with a strong preference being given toward a fiber optic based network.
 Perform a current technological review and assess/recommend the
hardware/software requirements necessary to support expanded offerings.
 Develop a high level, conceptual network design for Pelican Bay.
 Perform a cursory site-specific analysis to determine ways in which each building
would be connected to the network and any particular challenges that might
exist.
6



Work with Pelican Bay to evaluate the current legal standing relative to Florida
and federal laws. Based on this research, propose operational guidelines for
consideration.
Evaluate the type and quantity of technical and operational staff and/or what
augmentation (through outside service providers) would be likely and necessary.
Create business case scenarios relative to the most reasonable set of offerings
and deployment sequences.
This report serves as an illustration of a likely outcome of a given strategic business plan
required to achieve Pelican Bay’s objective.
Plausible Strategies
This analysis uses many assumptions derived from a variety of sources. The analysis
has two (2) purposes; first is to present a plausible outcome of the proposed
infrastructure project; second is to provide a guide if Pelican Bay were to pursue such
interests.
Determine course
of action
Five possible strategies are presented.
Stay with Provider (Status Quo)
Choose if Pelican Bay is substantially
satisfied with current levels of customer
service and price.
Services Bid Specification and monitor
contract
Choose if Pelican Bay is interested in a
marginal improvement in price with little
effort, and is substantially satisfied with
current levels of customer service: it should
simply hire an independent expert to
negotiate a better contract at time of renewal.
Further improvement to price and services
can be realized if the incumbent truly
believes that Pelican Bay intends to build the
system.
Own fiber only. Engage service provider to
furnish and maintain electronics, content,
network management and customer services.
Choose if Pelican Bay is 1) interested in good
improvement in price, 2) is less concerned
about best Internet price and performance, 3)
is willing to make significant investment, and
4) desires to substantially improve current
levels of customer service: it should build the
fiber then outsource all other functions. If a
7
Desire better
service/pricing?
N
Stay w/
Provider
(Status Quo)
Y
Willing to invest to
control price/
quality?
N
Services Bid
Spec and
monitor
contract
Y
Scalability, price
and flexibility
critical?
N
Own Fiber,
Electronics and
Services by
Provider
Y
Desire complete
control?
N
Own Fiber &
Electronics,
Services by
Provider
Recommended 2nd choice
because it provides the good
return, high control, but more
expensive long term, lower
performance, and is
complicated if providers
change when compared to
highly recommended.
Highly recommended
because it provides the
greatest return, most control,
and most flexibility.
Y
Own and
Operate
Not recommended because
of higher risk, it remains
outside Foundation’s core
competencies, and limited
economies of scale.
Figure 1 – Plausible Strategies
change in service providers is needed, the cutover becomes very complex and service
affecting.
Own fiber and electronics. Engage service provider to furnish, content, network
management and customer services.
Choose if Pelican Bay is 1) interested in best improvement in price, 2) best Internet
performance and access, 3) ability to monitor and hold the service provider accountable
4) is willing to make significant investment, and 5) desires to optimally improve current
levels of customer service, user experience and product choice: it should build the fiber
and electronics then outsource all other functions including the ongoing maintenance of
the electronics to the service provider. If a change in service providers is needed, the
cutover is simplified and not service affecting. This model provides the highest potential
for return on investment, most scalability, and acceptable risk. The balance of the
business plan centers around this option.
Own and operate the entire infrastructure.
Choose if Pelican Bay wants 1) the advantages listed in the option above, 2) desires
complete control, 3) is willing to assume much greater risk, 4) is willing to acquire
significant staff, and 5) acquire content. Given the complexity of the system, current
knowledge base, and known desires, this option is not recommended.
In any case, it is highly recommended that Pelican Bay follow the decision tree depicted
in figure 2 on the next page. This process should bear much fruit whether deciding to
just negotiate a new contract or build a state of the art fiber optic network.
Demonstrating that Pelican Bay is dedicated to improving services for its citizens will
create the leverage needed to contain price and improve service quality and breadth of
offerings. Please refer to Figure 2 – Proposed Decision Process found on the next
page.
8
N
Own Fiber,
Electronics and
Services by
Provider
Develop prelim
design
Legal & Reg
acceptable?
Perform Legal &
regulatory review
Perform Site
Survey / Walkout
Measure
CPE wiring
attenuation
and freq.
response
Y
N
Residents
interested?
Perform residential
survey
Y
Quit
Exposure
limited to
$230k
N
Develop detailed
construction cost
estimate
Cost estimate
acceptable?
Y
Y
Existing wiring
ok?
Document
infrastructure
suitability
N
Determine
Electronics
technology
Quit
Exposure
limited to
$530k
Add cost to rewire
to model
Develop bid
specifications
N
Note 1
Complete Detailed
Design
Solicit informal
quotes
Develop Service
Standard
Specifications
Proceed with
Project
Y
Y
Y
Still Interested
N
Note 1
Project Cost
acceptable?
Project viable?
Refine Business
Plan, WBS, Pert/
CPM Schedule,
Risks, etc.
N
Quit
Exposure
limited to
$550k
The exercise alone should
create leverage and
downward pressure on price.
A $5/mo. savings will break
even in 16-17 months.
Note 1
Figure 2 – Proposed Decision Process
9
Incumbent’s Existing Networks
Comcast
Comcast has a hybrid fiber-coax network that supports the delivery of video, Internet and
voice. It was installed 20-30 years ago and much of it was laid underground without the
benefit of conduit for protection. As a result, the system is affected by water and has
been repeatedly cut/damaged/spliced over the years. This leads to a degradation of
signal strength and noise (electrical interference) on the line.
The network was initially developed with five (5) distribution nodes. These have been
split several times and now number eighteen (18). This means that roughly 350
members share a delivered signal. Comcast’s current standard is seventy-five (75) endpoints per node.
Comcast has informed Pelican Bay that the network has fiber to each node that consists
of coaxial cable from the nodes to the buildings and onward into owners’ units. The
strength of the signal varies considerably across the network. As a result, Comcast’s
practice is to install signal boosters (amplifiers), either for whole associations, single
buildings or individual units; sometimes for all three locations. While signal strength is
improved, unwanted noise or distortion is also added to the system.
CenturyLink
CenturyLink inherited a copper network that was installed in Pelican Bay generally 20-30
years ago. Pelican Bay understands that the subject network has been upgraded to
include fiber to their distribution nodes, with twisted pair copper continuing the buildings.
The copper is adequate for today’s needs but is itself the limiting factor for carrying
capacity in the future due to signal loss over long distances of copper.
CenturyLink offers landline telephone service as well as video and Internet over their
copper.
Until recently, CenturyLink has told Pelican Bay that they will not install a fiber-to-thebuilding network. As of mid June 2012, their position may be softening. Recently, they
informed Pelican Bay that they desire to work with Pelican Bay in whatever capacity it
deems appropriate. However, CenturyLink has also expressed reservations about their
capacity to bring on a customer base as large as Pelican Bay’s. Century Link declined
to serve Pelican Marsh due to the requirement of rapid connectivity to 2,500 owners.
10
Pelican Bay’s Fiber Optic Network
Benefits of a community fiber optic network were weighed in perspective of the following
specifics:
 Connectivity and bandwidth requirements continue to increase.
o
According to the Spring 2011 traffic report from Sandvine, streaming by
Netflix now accounts for 30 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic. YouTube
accounts for an additional 11 percent.
o
HDTV needs five times the bandwidth of standard TV. Some televisions
are now available that project images in 3D, a service that demands even
more bandwidth.
o
Roughly 40 percent of all Americans have given up their landlines in favor
of expanded services through their cell phones and others are switching
from traditional landline service to companies providing telephone over
the internet

Deploying a broadband, multi-user, bi-directional network infrastructure through
leased, commercial services can be expensive.

Significant long term cost savings are probable for the community.

Significant improvement in service quality is probable for the community.

Significant improvement in product offerings are probable for the community.

The Foundation has a responsibility to support projects that maintain or enhance
property values within the community.
Fiber Optics
Pelican Bay should consider interconnecting to existing carriers and leasing transport
access to the lowest cost point of interconnection: Miami. Several fiber routes exist in
the area including to external fiber that runs along Route 41 or along Vanderbilt Beach
Road.
A headend should be constructed within the community.
Fiber should be laid in conduit throughout the community with appropriate hand-holes,
etc. The network should be passive which means that electronics are installed only at
the headend and the terminal end of each fiber and not in the field. This lowers
operating cost, simplifies maintenance and reduces unplanned outages.
The network should initially provide at least fifty (50) megabytes of service to each
member and be capable of expanding to provide one (1) gigabyte of service without
replacing the electronics.
Performance metrics should be established for the network and software would be
installed to track and report system performance. This should be used to hold the
service provider accountable.
11
Provided Service Versus Offered Service
Internet services should be provided to all members (residential and commercial) at a
price that would recoup operating costs. This price would be increased to allow
repayment of capital by owners. The price at which the service was delivered is
expected to be well below market pricing.
Given the probability of attractive bulk TV pricing, a package of basic video services (TV)
should be offered to all members. Premium services, including high-definition television,
premium channels, video on demand and DVR would also be available from the service
provider to be purchased by owners at additional cost as they wished.
Telephone services should be offered by the service provider to residential and
commercial members to be purchased at additional cost as they wished.
Expanded Services
The network would be capable of supporting home automation services that might
include the remote control of HVAC, water leakage detection, lighting and security,
Telemedicine is becoming a sought-after service in communities where residents are
trying to “age in place”. Members could be in “face-to-face” contact with their physician
through the use of in-home cameras and computers. Daily test results could be
provided to the physician over the system. This allows a frail resident, or one recovering
from an operation, to be in their home while receiving excellent care. We have begun
conversations that could lead to a partnership with Naples Community Hospital for these
services.
Customer Service and Maintenance
Customer service standards should be established to ensure first-class service for
members. A preference is seen in a call-center that would be located in the local area
with a complement of staff who speak English as their first language. The local
customer service office should be backed up by the service provider’s main call center
and tech support lines to mitigate wait times or escalate trouble tickets.
Performance standards must be established for the network that would include signal
strength, noise in the system, queue wait times, time to resolution, etc.
Note: There are no customer service or network performance standards in the current
contract which makes it impossible to demand the quality experience that is expected at
Pelican Bay.
Price
Providing services to owners through a bulk arrangement should provide for a
substantial discount on these services to our members.
Typical Internet services have very high margins and the direct provision of this service
to our members should give them substantial discounts over pricing that they could
receive on their own. Also, as bandwidth requirements increase, the direct provision of
12
Internet services creates even greater future savings. For example, the targeted 50
Mbps of Internet service are currently available from one of the incumbents at nearly
$200 a month.
Pricing for video and telephone services would be competitive but with smaller savings
forecast.
Why Pelican Bay?
Seeing the needs that a community-based network can satisfy, and knowing the benefits
that strong community infrastructure offers, have served as the catalyst to explore
expanded opportunities.
As the potential owner/operator of a significant optical fiber network, Pelican Bay
Foundation is the logical champion of such a project. Pelican Bay is not unique in
answering the call to serve their community with this new enterprise. Many others have
realized the true advantages that can be gained through a privately owned
communication network that is operated with a community-centric approach.
At this stage in the study, it may be useful to briefly identify what is the underlying
premise when the term “broadband” is referenced. President Bush2 identified the
following four critical items as fundamental facts in defining these services and how they
are delivered:
 Broadband is “high-speed Internet access”
 Broadband is “always on”, allowing a computer to remain connected to the
Internet 24 hours a day (separate and not interfering with a voice line)
 Dial-up service does not constitute broadband
 Broadband connectivity and service must be capable of supporting the following
quality of life services in a “real-time” manner:
o Real-time video
o Telemedicine
o Water leak detection
o Security cameras
o Interactive web teleconferencing
o Distance learning
o Audio
The question still remaining, though, is what exactly dictates “high-speed Internet
access”? That answer along with the how, how much and what if’s are all part of the
results presented in this document.
What Other Communities in SWFL Are Doing
A number of communities in Southwest Florida have been reviewing their options. Many
of these signed bulk video agreements with Comcast or Time Warner even before
Pelican Bay signed its current agreement. Now their contracts are maturing.
2
Report presented by President George W. Bush on April 26, 2004, as summarized in “A New Generation
of American Innovation”, published by the White House, pg. 12.
13
Bridgewater Bay recently announced that they signed with Marco Island Cable (NuVu)
to supply services to their roughly 500 members. They expect to go live on 7/1/2012. A
recent cursory site visit yielded a neat and orderly construction site. Restoration and
workmanship was good.
Countryside has recently agreed to work with Marco Island Cable (NuVu) on an Internet
and video package for their owners. Marco will build and own the network. They are
negotiating a 10-year contract.
Falling Waters is close to signing a contract with LiteStream under which LiteStream will
build and own a fiber network to all of their homes. The pricing and term of the
agreement are unknown, but LiteStream proposed a double play for us at $50 a month
under a ten-year contract.
Heron’s Glen is served by BroadStar who built out a fiber optic network and delivers a
double-play solution for Internet and TV through an exclusive multi-year (likely 10 years)
contract. They have a video head-end that delivers a DirectTV solution.
Huntington Lakes is served by BroadStar who built out a fiber optic network and delivers
double-play services through an exclusive multi-year (likely 10 years) contract. They
have a video headend that delivers DirectTV.
Pelican Landing is considering a proposal from Marco Island Cable (NuVu) to build out a
fiber network that would deliver Internet services until their Comcast contract expires.
They have been quoted $22 a month for 22 megabytes of service.
Pelican Marsh recently narrowed their potential partners to Comcast and HotWire. We
are informed that they are considering a short-term extension with Comcast to allow
them to see how the market develops. A decision is pending.
The Vineyards has recently agreed to work with Marco Island Cable (NuVu) on a tripleplay solution for their 2500 members. Priced at $71 a month, it will include 20 megs of
Internet service, a basic video line-up that is “competitive” with the Comcast line-up as
well as VOIP services for all owners. The Vineyards will pay for the construction of the
network and will own it. They are up charging $20 a month to their owners – and so the
price to the end-users is $91 a month. They are negotiating a 10-year contract. A
triple-play solution may make sense at The Vineyards as the majority of their owners live
there year-round.
Potential Providers
There are a number of companies operating in Southwest Florida or who might operate
here, that can deliver these services. They have slightly different product packages,
although competition is bringing them closer together with their offerings. They have
varied success at delivering excellent customer service.
Additionally, a network owned by Pelican Bay would attract potential service providers
from all over the United States. Pelican Bay should work with the Fiber To The Home
Council to post RFQs or RFPs as it seeks quality providers.
14
Big River Telephone Company was founded in 1983 and has its corporate offices in St.
Louis, Missouri. The Gartner Group named them the top Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) implementation and corporate philosophy for companies under
$500M in revenue worldwide in 2005. CIO Decisions named Big River one of the Top 10
Companies in the US regarding customer focus .
Big River Telephone started out as a Long Distance reseller and migrated to a CLEC
servicing the needs of customers in Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky. Big River Telephone
has evolved into one the market leaders for delivering VoiP- Digital Telephone ServiceVideo and Broadband to our customers. Big River provides communication services in
all 50 states. Over the past ten years they have partnered with cable companies, ISP's,
and municipalities in the delivering of communication services over their networks. This
has proven to be a very successful venture for our partners and Big River. They
currently have over 1 million homes passed under contract and continue to grow.
BroadStar Communications LLC is a privately held company that specializes in video,
Internet and telephone services for apartments, condominiums and other multipledwelling communities.
Comcast is the largest cable operator, home Internet service provider, and fourth largest
home telephone service provider in the United States. They are headquartered in
Philadelphia, PA and have 23.5 million television subscribers, 15.9 million broadband
Internet subscribers and 7.6 million voice customers (2009 data). The current triple-play
package is known as Xfinity. Comcast has significant holdings in several cable networks
as well as a majority stake in the media-conglomerate NBC Universal. Comcast has
received poor results on customer satisfaction surveys, often ranking lowest in the US.
CenturyLink is a global broadband and telecommunications company headquartered in
Monroe, Louisiana. The company operates as a local exchange carrier and Internet
service provider in U.S. markets and is the third-largest telecommunications company in
the United States in terms of lines served, behind AT&T and Verizon Communications.
Thus far, CenturyLink has not shown real any interest in being a potential provider.
DirecTV is a digital satellite TV and audio service provider with an overall customer base
of 20 million subscribers as of 2010. The service is accessed through dish antennae
and requires a set-top box. DirecTV has its own network known as “The 101 Network”
that can be accessed only by DirecTV subscribers. It holds the rights to several sports
packages including NFL Sunday Ticket and NASCAR Hot Pass. DirecTV has recently
introduced high-speed Internet services that can be accessed through broadband
partnerships (CenturyLink) as well as satellite.
Dish Network Corporation is a pay TV service provider of satellite television, audio
services and interactive television for about 14 million residential and commercial
customers. As its name suggests, Dish Network is accessed through a satellite dish and
a receiver. They offer several packages with as many as 250 TV channels to watch
depending on which package you choose.
Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. is a broadband service provider located in
Minnesota. They were created in 1977 as a successor to a not-for-profit education
initiative called Luminet. While more than 40 percent of their stock is owned by Winona-
15
area educational institutions, Fastenal, Inc. continues to hold a significant share.
Hiawatha Broadband (HBCI) provides voice, video and Internet services across facility
based, FTTP, wireless, wireline, and dial-up infrastructure. HBCI is so committed to
customer services that they invested in training at Disney in Orlando.
HotWire Communications is a privately owned company operating from Miami. They
offer a triple-play product and are installed in many hire-rise apartment buildings. We do
not know an exact customer count and have not initiated contact based on the significant
number of customer issues showing up in various blogs. One community is seeking to
break their contract with HotWire.
LiteStream Holdings LLC is a privately owned company operating from St. Augustine,
Florida offering video, Internet and phone services to 10,300 residential and business
customers. We’ve had one meeting with them and have a proposal for a double play of
video and Internet for $50 a month with a 10-year contract. There are mixed reviews for
quality customer service.
Marco Island Cable is a privately owned company operating as a cable and Internet
provider for about 18 years from a base on Marco Island. They have about 10,000
subscribers on Marco, including almost all (95%) of the condominium associations as
customers. An additional 1,000 customers are in Bonita Springs. Pending contracts
would give them another 3,500-plus customers. (Vineyards, Countryside, etc) Some of
the management team formerly worked at BroadStar where they installed fiber networks
at Huntington Lakes and Heron’s Glen.
Marco Cable is known as NuVu when they operate off island. They have approached us
with a willingness to modify their normal operating methods in response to our needs.
They are offering to build out a network to serve us or to build a network to Pelican Bay’s
standards that we would own and they would then operate over it. Lastly, if Pelican Bay
builds a network, they are very interested in offering any or all services that we would
wish to deliver to our owners. Preferred term would be 5 years if Pelican Bay owned the
network to 10 years if Marco Cable owned the network.
Mid-Hudson Cable is a privately owned operator headquartered just south of Albany, NY
serving about 12,000 subscribers across 10,000 miles of a hybrid fiber/coax network.
We have received an initial expression of interest in our project. They say that their
production facilities in New York could support the delivery of a triple-play package to us
(including IPTV) and their construction subsidiary could build a network for us. This is
very early stage but MHC is included as an example of how attractive is the opportunity
to deal with this project.
Midwest Video Solutions is based in Wisconsin and was formed by three companies with
a long history of providing communications services to their customers. They have
seven (7) years experience providing IPTV (digital TV Services). Midwest now has
twenty (20) service providers receiving signals from either of their two individual headend facilities. Transport of the video signals is not limited to the Upper Midwest. One
international site receiving video is the US Air Force in Yokota, Japan.
Verizon Communications Inc. is a global broadband and telecommunications company,
second largest in the US. Verizon was one of the first major US carriers to offer fiber to
the home as they bundled Internet, telephone and television services under their FIOS
16
label. As of July 2010 they had about 3.8 MM FIOS Internet and 3.2 MM FIOS TV
customers from the roughly 15 million homes that their network passes. They operate in
Florida south to Punta Gorda. Verizon management has determined that they cannot
commit corporate energy or capital to expanding their territory until they build out regions
where they have already made commitments to do so. This precludes them from being
a vendor for Pelican Bay.
17
Business Model & Financial Analysis
Basis of Business Model and Costs
Several scenarios were analyzed using different FTTP electronics transport
architectures. Each of the architectures, including active Ethernet, hybrid active passive
Ethernet, BPON, Gigabit EPON, and the soon to be released GPON were evaluated.
Based on the timing of this project’s deployment and the analyzed cost benefit of each
competing FTTP delivery method, IEEE Gigabit Ethernet PON (GEPON) or GPON were
selected as the lowest overall cost and most flexible options available.
The selected business model is based on cost data provided by manufacturers,
contractors and other professionals within the FTTP industry. The general parameters in
each model scenario assume that Pelican Bay will design to an industry standard 1x16
split and use local convergence point cabinets to insure future scalability and maximize
flexibility. Incidentally, this design can be used with GEPON, GPON and dedicated
Gigabit Ethernet (for large demand users). This approach can accommodate future
expandability as customers demands change.
Mission Statement
A mission statement must define the business and goals of the organization. A good
mission statement will provide direction while guiding strategy formulation. Pelican Bay
Foundation should consider the creation of a mission statement for this project.
Following is an example of a mission statement to help stimulate thoughtful discussion.
“To provide a community fiber optic network, offering affordable converged
communication services to the residential and commercial members of Pelican Bay,
in order to help the community grow intellectually, collaboratively, competitively and
economically, thereby enhancing present and future quality of life.”
18
Business Plan Metrics
Technology Assumptions
The model assumes that Gigabit Ethernet Passive Optical Network technology is used
throughout the community. For multiple dwelling units (MDU), such as high rise and mid
rise, devices equipped to provide service for up to 8 individual units will be utilized.
Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) media converters will be leveraged to reuse the
existing coaxial wiring between the telecom closet and each member unit. Single family
homes and quadplexes will use individual, outdoor rated, single family unit optical
network terminals. In this case, the design will reclaim the coaxial cable for video
services beginning at the point of demarcation on the exterior wall of each structure.
The model generally assumes that 1,000MB of network bandwidth will be shared by 16
units; each unable to see the other to insure security. The AES encryption, or some
future derivative, has been assumed for Internet data while TV will use a different color
of light on the optical fiber and have its own standard encryption. For modeling
purposes, Society of Cable Television Engineers Standard 55-1 was assumed since it
remains the dominate choice.
Two separate financial models were created to demonstrate the breadth of financial
possibilities. The first (Option One) assumes the use of all cash (Cash) while the second
(Option Two) supposes a small upfront cash contribution with the rest of the monies for
the project coming from some sort of financing (Loan). The model generates enough
capital to reimburse the Pelican Bay Foundation after the term of the loan.
Below, please find an explanation of the assumptions used to create the model. Unless
explicitly stated otherwise, each assumption applies to both the “cash” and “loan”
models.
Business Model Assumptions
General
Timing plays an important role in modeling the cash flows. The engineering is assumed
to take place in the Fall/Winter of 2012/2013 in order to refine the cost model and
provide firm numbers for use in the decision making process.
Firm quotes for the 2014 construction season would be received in Q3 2013 with a Q1
2014 construction start date. Construction costs used in the model will be specifically
addressed.
The preparation work for financing (if needed) would take place in early Q1 2014 with
final issuance taking place in April 2014.
Construction should start in late January 2014 on the mainline; that is to say the fiber
optic cable and devices located outside.
19
The model further assumes that a sample of 200 members would be cut over to the new
system as a pilot project in Q4 of 2014. The pilot is required, not because of the
technology, but moreover to insure that all of the installation techniques are standardized
and that the back office integration between the technology and the chosen service
provider is vetted. This involves regression testing of every element including bill
presentation, invoicing of upgrade services, accounting system integration, customer
service, customer history, work order management, etc.
Inflation of 3.2% is assumed.
All technical support, customer service and system maintenance shall be the
responsibility of the service provider(s).
Following, please find a description of each line item allocation of the cash flows, and
corresponding method of calculation.
Cash Flow Elements
Operational Receipts
Member Services Fee
One potential provider has made an offer of 70 channels of TV including many of the
most popular stations, some local broadcast HD and some popular music channels.
This bulk offering is superior to Comcast’s existing product and is included in the model
as a direct pass thru at $22.50 over the new and improved infrastructure; otherwise it
would simply have inflated both revenue and expense. This discounted pricing is only
available to Pelican Bay if it builds out its own fiber optic network.
The Cash model requires a $10 monthly fee to all owners to recover outsourced
customer service and system maintenance, $2.23 for wholesale Internet access, and
$1.50 for operational expenses and $6.68 for reserve funding. The resulting $21.00
monthly payment is considered the member services fee in the “Cash” model.
The “Loan” model adds an $13.41 monthly debt service component to the “Cash” model.
The resulting $34.00 monthly payment is considered the member services fee in the
“Loan” model.
The member service fee is held level for the first two years, then increases at 6% every
other year. This figure was chosen to keep pace with inflation while balancing the need
to increase rates with the most tolerable frequency and step increase for the members.
The Foundation can choose to use anything from zero to $8.1 MM of their own funds for
the project, balancing the cash requirement with some form of borrowing. The benefits
of Option Two revert back to those of Option One once the funding has been repaid.
20
Operational Disbursements
Salaries and Benefits
Pelican Bay should consider designating one current employee or hiring one person on
a part time basis (10-12 hours per week) to:
 Review and enforce terms and conditions of the vendor contracts
 Act as liaison between the Foundation and providers on any elevated issues
 Report periodically to the board
The model assumes $1,000 per month of salary expense. Again, this role could be an
enhancement of the duties performed by a current employee. Inflation begins after
month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Training & Travel
A training and travel budget was established at $12,000 covering 12 months. These
monies could be used for attending conferences such as the Broadband Communities
and Fiber to the Home national conventions or quarterly meetings where Pelican Bay
staff or Committee members can network with other properties and communities
experiencing similar issues. These expenses are reasonable considering ownership of a
$8 MM network which transports more than $8 MM in services annually, and the ever
evolving nature of the services offered. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at
a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Overtime
No overtime is anticipated.
Overhead and Benefits
The model assumes overhead and benefits at 42% of salary. Inflation begins after month
1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Other Benefits
No other benefits are anticipated.
Legal and Attorney Fees
No ongoing legal and attorney fees are anticipated.
Maintenance and Customer Support
Pelican Bay desires to outsource all technical support, customer service, and system
maintenance to a service provider capable of providing television service and supporting
Internet and data services.
One interested provider submitted a budgetary figure of $10 per member per month.
This budgetary fee was based on the following staff composition and includes but is not
limited to all human capital, and overhead and profits. They would handle all call center
customer service requests and on-site technical services, as well as all required
scheduled maintenance necessary to support the network and the members. This
dedicated staff would be backed-up by the successful provider’s personnel in similar
roles. The full time, dedicated staff composition includes:
 1 Networking Professional to maintain the physical electronics, switch, route and
server as well as logical network issues.
21


7 customer service representatives to resolve issues, as well as to assist and
educate the members.
7 Field Technicians / Installers to install, troubleshoot and maintain the mainline
corresponding electronics.
This cost is held constant through 2016 as agreed to by a local service provider. Inflation
begins in January 2017 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded
monthly.
A followup letter confirms the $10 management fee as a firm price.
Rentals and Leases
No rental and lease expense is anticipated.
Transportation Reimbursement
No other transportation reimbursement is anticipated beyond that of the training and
travel.
Other Contractual Services
No other contractual services are anticipated.
Marketing
It is anticipated that communication with members regarding bulk services will be
included by the Pelican Bay Foundation in its normal marketing efforts, i.e., the Pelican
Bay Post, Daily Pelican Bay, email blasts, Town Hall meetings, etc. Marketing expenses
for additional services are the responsibility of the service provider. Pelican Bay may
elect to assist the service provider by supplying new members with a welcome packet
provided by the service provider at their own expense. No cost for marketing is included
in the model.
ISP Network Maintenance
No additional ISP network maintenance expenses are anticipated beyond those
provided by the service provider. These costs are embedded in the $10 per member
monthly management fee.
Contractual/Data Content Fee
The monthly cost for direct Internet access is derived from several industry standard cost
components including transport, collocation, power, cross connects and direct Internet
access. The model assumes that Pelican Bay will lease a fiber circuit capable of
transporting up to 10GB of Ethernet south to a Network Access Point such as
Terremark’s NAP of the Americas. Terremark is owned by Verizon. Once inside the
NAP, Pelican Bay will have the opportunity to select between several Tier 1, 2 and 3
service providers. The model further assumes that Pelican Bay will select Level 3
Networks because of their quality service offering and strategic alliance with Netflix. The
video over Internet experience is superior.
As a low cost backup provider, the model assumes that Pelican Bay will also contract
with Hurricane Electric. Outsourcing to more than one provider drastically reduces the
likelihood of a system wide outage for either a carrier or port failure. This model provides
for 2GB of internet access combined and coincidently shared between 6500 members.
22
Given the intermittent nature of most existing Internet traffic, 2GB should provide enough
bandwidth for all members to favorably experience a best effort 50MB service. Future
Internet traffic is expected to become more constant as increasing demand for video
continues.
Firm quotes were received for the Internet and transport based on current street prices.
Costs for power, rack space and cross connects were based on known street prices out
of Miami’s sister facility in Chicago.
Over the last 10 years, the cost of bandwidth has continually declined. The model
conservatively assumes the cost will stay the same over the life of the model.
Telephone / Communications
The model assumes Pelican Bay Foundation will continue to provide phone service
access for its employees. Normal customer service calls will go to the outside provider.
No other phone expense is anticipated.
Utilities
It is very likely that the head end will house several pieces of equipment including, but
not limited to, erbium doped fiber amplifiers, servers, switches, routers and session
border controllers. A small amount of water is also required for proper humidification.
The model anticipates $300 in utilities expense. Inflation begins after month 1 and is
calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Fiber Maintenance and Repair
In an internal presentation to Verizon board members, executives communicated that
recent experience with Fios properties has yielded an 80% reduction in monthly
maintenance cost. Given the average cost of $3,200 for a mainline repair, a monthly
fiber and maintenance expense of $2,500 monthly, beginning in April 2015, is
anticipated. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2%
compounded monthly.
Electronics Maintenance and Repair
A figure of $3,000 per month is allocated to cover the cost of repairing damaged
electronic equipment in the field or headend. It is expected that the vendor will perform
this work but that it would be in addition to the monthly fees that they charge.
Additionally, some of the monies will be used for software support, and periodic testing
of the fire suppression system, uninterruptable power supplies, and HVAC systems.
Inflation begins after the first month of allocated expense and is calculated at a flat
annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Insurance
A community having 800 fewer passings but 3x the cable miles exposure is currently
paying $1,417 monthly for insurance on the assets. The same figure is in this model. It
is recommended that the Foundation seek a more formal quote from its insurance carrier
to be sure the costs are in line. Inflation begins after the first month of allocated expense
and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly.
Minor Equipment
No minor equipment expenses are anticipated.
23
Operating Supplies
No operating supply expenses are anticipated.
Fuels
No fuel expense for vehicles or equipment is anticipated.
Capital Receipts
Foundation Funding (both models)
The model assumes that the Pelican Bay Foundation will fund the legal review, site
survey and engineering design costs associated with the project in 2012. The work
should begin in Fall of 2012 and be complete by Spring of 2013. The objective is to
have an accurate understanding of the construction costs, timeline, and any regulatory
and legal hurdles that must be overcome. Foundation funding is anticipated to be
$412,800.
Furthermore, the “Loan” model assumes that the Foundation funds the first year’s
principal and interest to insure proper cash flow. As such, the model anticipates the
project repaying the Foundation at the term of the Loan. Another method is to capitalize
principal and interest for one year, but this adds unnecessary debt burden to the model
which would amount to an increased cost to the members.
Option One – All Cash (“Cash”)
The model assumes that the Pelican Bay Foundation will fund the project with cash
contributions.
Option Two – Loan (“Loan”)
A simple amortization schedule was constructed based on closing external financing in
March/April 2014. The model assumes 6% simple interest compounded annually and a
loan term of 10 years. First payment would be due in April 2015. As stated earlier, the
first year’s payment would be funded by the Foundation. The model assumes that the
project would repay the foundation after the term of the Loan expires.
Interest Income
The model assumes a nominal 0.1% annual percentage rate compounded monthly on
unused funds. The interest income is calculated throughout the life of the loan.
Capital Disbursements
Head End
Although the community center, which is undergoing remodeling, may have
approximately 160 square feet available on the ground floor for a dedicated head end
room, the model assumes a standalone building measuring 12’Wx20’Lx9’H. In any
case, a firm quote was received for the cost of a standalone building. This cost was
inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. Note that
the room should not be smaller than 10’ wide x 16’ long and 9’ high from floor to ceiling.
Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote.
24
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over four months beginning in May
2014.
Core
A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed for Pelican Bay. The
costs of the core include switches, routers, firewalls, multiplexing gear needed to
transport the Internet from the network access point in Miami to the Pelican Bay
headend, virtualized servers, storage attached networks, domain name system, dynamic
host protocol server, and other necessary hardware.
This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction
costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote.
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over two months beginning in
August 2014.
Optical Networking Materials
A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed. One likely manufacturer
provided a detailed cost estimate for all electronics necessary to bring the services from
the head end to each member. The budgetary quote was received on May 23, 2012.
The manufacturer noted that they expect declining costs over the next 2 years due to
assembly and technology improvements planned for later this year.
In spite of this information, this cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive
at 2014 construction costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a
copy of the quote. The modeled costs are likely 12% higher than actual.
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over ten months beginning in May
2014.
It should also be understood that given the very innovative nature of the electronics, the
actual final design will likely be different. Much is happening in the marketplace that will
greatly benefit Pelican Bay by Spring 2015.
Mainline Construction
A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed from information
available through Google Maps and various GIS data sources. Actual construction costs
were compared over three similar projects in 2011/2012 and the most conservative unit
prices were used, and then adjusted for the 34108 area code using Reed Construction’s
RS Cost Works. Union Wages were used.
Reed Construction maintains a
comprehensive construction cost database for use throughout the United States.
costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote. The
modeled costs are likely 9-13% higher than actual.
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over eleven months beginning in
May 2014.
25
Service Drop Construction
The methodology used for the mainline construction cost estimate was used for service
drop construction.
Review of the last three similar projects suggests that typical service drop construction
costs approximately $283 per customer if all customers were single family homes on .35
acre lots. Given the MDU density of Pelican Bay, and the nature of the build, the project
estimates the cost at a blended rate of $118 per member. This is roughly the equivalent
of $283 per single family home and $283 per MDU floor. This cost must be more fully
vetted through the results of a detailed site survey and engineering design.
costs. The modeled costs are likely 12% higher than actual.
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over five months beginning in
November 2014.
Customer Premise Install Materials
Materials including cable, connectors, and other consumables are estimated at a
blended rate of $17 per member. These costs are based on an experienced service
operators consumable cost per install reported in May 2012.
costs.
The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over five months beginning in
November 2014.
Equipment and Tools
No equipment and tools expenses are anticipated.
Engineering
The model assumes that engineering (site survey and engineering drawings) for the
mainline construction is completed in 2012/2013 in order to more fully understand
construction costs associated with the project. This cost will not be exceeded.
Construction Management and Startup
On-site construction inspection and construction management has been included.
Construction Management begins in May 2014 and assumes expenses are distributed
evenly over eleven months while Startup assistance begins in August 2014 and
concludes in July 2015. This will allow for oversight and quality management for the first
full quarter of general availability. This cost will not be exceeded.
Other Costs
Pelican Bay will want to engage a telecom attorney familiar with Comcast, multiple
dwelling units, and Florida Law. Pelican Bay is in the process of vetting different lawyers
to assist in a thorough review of legal and regulatory issues associated with the project.
26
Value of Plant Property and Equipment (PPE)
The value of PPE is the sum of all capital expenditures, less depreciation. The model
assumes monthly adjustments to the PPE value.
Contribution in Lieu of Taxes
The model does not anticipate any costs associated with a contribution in lieu of taxes.
Reserve
A straight-line reserve value is calculated based on the sum of the capital costs of each
major component multiplied by the anticipated useful life of the asset, then divided by the
same capital cost. The blended depreciation term equals 14.61 years or 176 months.
The same value is applied to the engineering, construction management, startup and
legal fees.
The switches and routers in the head end will likely require upgrades sometime after 5
years while the FTTP electronics will last 7 to 10 years. These investments would be
funded from the monies set aside as reserve funding by the Foundation. This figure
continues in perpetuity. It’s conservative to show this expense beginning in less than 10
years.
It should be noted that while municipalities often define useful life of electric plant over
30 years, aggressive telephone companies may elect a 15 year useful life schedule for
their plant. Most opt for a 20 year schedule. The Foundation may want to consider
some form of reserve funding based on the following schedule of recommended useful
lives:
 Headend
25 years
 Core
5 years
 Optical Networking Materials
7 years
 Mainline Construction
20 years
 Customer Premise Materials
Expensed
 Engineering
14.47 years
 Construction Management and Startup
14.47 years
 Legal Costs
14.47 years
As a result the blended useful; life is 14.47 years or 174 months.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR)
The DSCR is determined by dividing the net operating total by the debt service. A
DSCR of 1.25 is considered investment worthy. A DSCR greater than 1.35 is desirable
and may yield a lower interest rate should external funding be pursued, thus further
reducing the debt burden of the project. The model shows a Debt Service Coverage
Ratio of rate beginning at 1.45 and growing to 1.91 over the term of the loan.
Conclusion
The two models provided are meant to serve as the likely sideboards for funding
discussions. It is clear that the business model is sustainable and provides members
significant benefit. Based on the size of the investment and the projected annual
member savings, the return on investment is just over 8 years for the “loan” model while
the “cash” model pays off in 5 years. The “loan” model yields $1.9MM in net operating
27
cash (excluding reserves) after 10 years while the “cash” model yields $1.1MM under
the same conditions, a natural contingency in both plans.
Sensitivity Analysis
In an effort to better understand the business models interdependencies, several key
variables were adjusted independently to determine the impact on the model. Only the
loan model was tested since it is the most conservative. The resultant model movement
is described below for each test.

Interest rate variability; + 0.50%
o Increases annual debt service by $24,923.
o Increases member rate $1 per month.
o Reduces aggregate member benefit by $24,923.
o Increases payoff date by 2 months.

Capital Expense variability; +$250k
o Increases loan amount $200k
o Increases annual debt service by $27,174.
o Increases member rate by $1 per month.
o Reduces aggregate member benefit by $27,174.
o Increases payoff date by 2 months.

Loan term variability; increase to 15 years
o Decreases annual debt service by $253k
o Increases debt service coverage ratio to beginning at 1.58 and ending at 2.42
o Decreases member rate by $3 per month.
o Increases payoff date by 3 years

Operating Expense variability; increase by $5,000 per month with inflation
o Increases member rate by $0.76 per month.
28
How Much Bandwidth Is Enough?
In order to answer this question, several key concepts must be addressed.
Questions including “What is the growth rate of bandwidth?” and “How is the
bandwidth being used?” are fundamental to the understanding of bandwidth
demand. Also, what is adequate for one person may not be enough for another.
Much depends on the type and frequency of use. Clearly we know that what is
considered enough bandwidth today will become inadequate in the future. The
16 bit computer of 1981 was revolutionary because it had an astounding 640KB
of memory. Today, students carry thumb drives having 100,000 times the
capacity of this early PC. The Android Smartphone of 2010 had 15 times more
computing power than the CRAY 1 super computer of 1980.
= 15 x
The following Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast provides an excellent
understanding of the burgeoning demand for data. Several key indicators
suggest data growth will continue to blossom. All usage and traffic results are
validated using data shared with Cisco from service providers.
29
One of the forecasts for 2012 includes:
- Internet video will surpass 50% of consumer Internet traffic, reaching 61%
by the end of 2015.
Some of the statistics forecast for 2015 include:
- Global IP traffic will increase fourfold over the next 5 years.
- The number of devices connected to IP networks will be twice as high as
the global population in 2015.
- Busy hour traffic will grow
more rapidly than average
Types Of Devices Preferred For Various Tasks
Percent Preferring At Home
traffic.
- Video-on-demand traffic
will triple
From Pelican Bay's perspective a
member will likely use the
following:
- 8MB to 20MB for Web
surfing
- 2 MB for video
conferencing
- 20 MB to download and
Building Fiber-to-the-Home
CommunitiesTogether
30
-
view a high definition movie
1 MB for Internet based phone
In total, 43 MB should provide adequate service for the next few years. The
business model plans for 50 MB download and 50 MB upload (synchronous)
speed per member. Pelican Bay is planning to install hardware that would allow
for a twentyfold increase to members without significant upgrade costs.
For a more comprehensive answer to this question, please refer to Appendix 1.
31
What Technologies Should Be Considered? Why FTTP?
When determining the optimal set of technologies for broadband deployment, one must
factor in a number of primary considerations. First on the list is the ability to meet the
needs of the community, both today and in the future. Regardless of the technology
selected, the objective to connect and communicate in Pelican Bay must offer a solution
(or combination of solutions) that will achieve the economic development goals while
improving the quality of life among its residents.
The investment in new infrastructure must meet the determined measures, based on
reasonable load growth progressions, to avoid costly premature replacements and/or
customer service/reliability problems. Undersized, inadequate or poor quality (including
construction) facilities will not meet Pelican Bay’s stringent measures.
The premises network being built must have the flexibility to provide for current network
needs while having the capability to facilitate the upgrades and extensions that may be
required in the future without re-cabling. The greater-bandwidth reach capability of
optical fiber translates into a greater distance capability for any given data rate.
Network reliability and security is
systems. Network security must
information are transferred over
necessary to offer this level of
available per customer.
of utmost importance in modern telecommunication
be guaranteed, as increasing levels of sensitive
the Internet. FTTP provides for the applications
security without impacting the bandwidth delivery
Optimal technology selection for broadband deployment must factor in a number of
primary considerations:
 The ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future.
 Improve the quality of life among its residents.
 May involve the use of several technologies
 Thorough due diligence is prudent to ensure that the business case will support
such capital expenditures.
According to Jupiter Research, a respected technology research house, “tech savvy”
broadband consumers may demand as much as 84 Mb/s3 within the next four years. In
its report titled, A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter’s researchers
concluded that mainstream users may demand between 57 and 72 Mb/s. Much of this
forecasted connectivity requirement is anticipated due to the real-time video applications
and related activities.
For the obvious advantages, and the ability to differentiate the level and scalability of
service, Pelican Bay has determined that FTTP is the preferred choice. However, since
much has been written and described as to the pros and cons of the various systems
available today, due diligence would dictate that a cursory overview be provided on each
of the technologies to consider. The following is a brief overview of these systems,
including the advantages and limitations that were evaluated prior to selecting FTTP.
3
A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter Research published findings reported by
Internetweek on November 4, 2004, available at www.internetweek.com.
32
The remainder portion of this section focuses specifically on FTTP and the various
architectures offered through that delivery choice.
Wireless
Several forms of wireless technology will be discussed. It should be well understood
that wireless poses several technological and business disadvantages to fiber.
Fiber is Superior from a Technology Perspective
Short of defying the laws of physics, wireless does not have the available broadcast
spectrum that is safe for humans and the environment to support bandwidth speeds
comparable to fiber optics.
Also wireless does not have the noise immunity
characteristics of fiber as other wireless transmitting devices can compete for the same
wavelengths. Licensed wireless spectrum will not prevent someone from jamming the
signal and rendering the network useless until the perpetrator is apprehended. Although
wireless algorithms have become much more secure in recent years, they still are not as
secure as fiber networks. Finally, environmental conditions such as lightning, rain, tree
canopy, and buildings cause significant loss in signal strength. Fiber is immune from
harsh environmental conditions. Fiber is itself environmentally friendly. Electronics used
to power fiber based networks consume less energy for the same given service area.
Fiber is Superior from a Business Perspective
A good wireless business model will assume a technology refresh every 3 years for all of
the electronic radios in the field. Spectrum’s experience has been that wireless systems
are less expensive on first cost. However, taking into account higher expenses
associated with more frequent trouble calls, higher cost to power electronics, and a
technology refresh every 3 years, wireless models often become more expensive than
fiber models when looking beyond 7 years.
The detailed wireless discussion below serves to demonstrate genuine consideration of
each technology. However every wireless option discussed below can be considered
technically inferior to bandwidth and other capabilities of fiber. Wireless has a place in
the network. It reigns supreme in the application of mobility.
Wireless Fidelity (WiFi)
WiFi, short for Wireless Fidelity, uses radio signals to share broadband Internet
connections within a few hundred feet. The Alliance, whose 200+ partners include
Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Philips, Sony, Texas Instruments, Nokia, and Cisco Systems,
estimates there are between 25,000 and 30,000 public Wi-Fi spots worldwide.4 Recent
trends towards increased security are hampering WiFi’s interoperability. At present 22%
of all WiFi products will not play well with others without the help of a knowledgeable
technician.
When compared to Fiber, WiFi provides value for mobility at a premium cost with some
sacrificing of reliability. It is also important to note that nearly all wireless traffic is
backhauled using fiber optic networks. The advantages of portability and broadband
data access will make a big play in offices, coffee shops, libraries, and other commercial
4
Wi-Fi Interoperability Problem on Rise, Associated Press, HANOVER, Germany. Posted on Kansas City
Star, March 18, 2004.
33
and public establishments. Other shortcomings include transmission limited to a few
thousand feet, limited security, and bandwidth limitations that will not afford
simultaneous transmission of voice, video and data.
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX)
WiMAX is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard and affords better operating range than
WiFi. WiMAX can operate over a range of 30 miles by line of site and carry as much as
70Mb of data. For no-line of site conditions, radio performance is diminished. The
service can be used as a point-to-point or multi-subscriber system and will offer speeds
comparable to presently installed cable modem systems. It is important to note that
bandwidth availability diminishes quickly after the first few miles, or with harsh
environmental conditions such as metal structures.
Broadband Wireless Access (BWA)
BWA has existed in Europe for more than eight years but had fallen out of favor due to
technical issues. Nevertheless three years ago, interest in BWA increased in the U.S.
for two reasons. First, the success of WiFi equipment based on the 802.11 standard has
renewed faith in wireless as a potentially important broadband technology. Second, a
new generation of equipment (referred to as “N-BWA”) that does more, but costs less, is
attracting widespread interest.
A number of startups and established wireless equipment vendors promote N-BWA,
including Airspan, Alvarion, ArrayComm, Axxcelera, Flarion, IPWireless, Navini, Redline
and SR Telecom. In some cases, these vendors have powerful support from key
technology enablers, including Intel and QUALCOMM.5
N-BWA equipment does not fit an obvious niche yet because providers believe it:
 Poses a challenge to mainstream fixed broadband services, at least in the
medium term
 Is largely a niche fill-in access technology, primarily suited to regions that DSL
cannot reach
 Is an alternative to third generation wireless (3G) with the cost characteristics of
fixed broadband but the convenience and reach of a mobile service; often
dubbed fourth generation (4G)
 Is an alternative to WiFi (802.11) that is better suited to wide-area applications
Although BWA can transmit much further than WiFi, security, bandwidth restrictions and
(to a lesser degree) cost remain limitations.
5
Tech Update Wired & Wireless, Is Broadband Wireless Access Back from the Dead? By Graham Finnie
March 16, 2004. Original Post by Yankee Group, March 2, 2004
34
Broadband Use At Home By Type
Speed and performance are winning in the United States. DSL is down versus Docsis3 Cable modem. FTTH continues to increase – constrained by availability.
Source: RVA LLC 2012 Broadband Consumer Survey
CommunitiesTogether
Satellite
Satellite providers such as Dish Network and Direct TV offer a host of video channels
and compete directly with the more traditional cable operators. However, unlike
standard video services, advanced services like “near video-on-demand” are available.
Satellite providers also offer some broadband services, but are often less competitive;
generally offering asynchronous communication of 768K in the down direction and 56k in
the up direction for about $70 per month. Satellite’s reliability is often plagued with
terrestrial problems such as rain, tree canopy growth, solar flares, etc. Additional
limitations include lack of security, little upstream bandwidth, reliability, and inability to
offer voice services. Despite these negatives, Satellite is most attractive in very rural
areas where other improved services are not available due to the cost to build out.
Recently, Hughes has introduced a new satellite service capable of delivering speeds of
3Mb down and 200kb up6. The service presently is targeted for very rural parts of the
country that have no other options for broadband.
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
DSL gained significant market share in the industry over the past 10 years. Standard
DSL is now losing ground to cable modem service. Telephone companies, including the
Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) and rural telephone companies, are using
6
HughesNet Satellite website. July 7, 2008
35
DSL to extend the life of their aging copper plant and to make up for revenues lost due
to customers switching from traditional phone service to cellular.
DSL’s maximum throughput is 8.5Mb. Unfortunately, DSL may only be available within
12,000 feet of the phone company’s central office.
New for 2008 is VDSL2 (Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2). This technology is
something that AT&T plans to invest in heavily as an alternative to FTTP. VDSL2 is an
access technology that exploits the existing infrastructure of copper wires that were
originally deployed for POTS (plain old telephone service). It can be deployed from
central offices, from fiber-fed cabinets located near the customer premises, or within
buildings.
VDSL2 is based on the ITU G.993.2 standard and is the newest and most advanced
standard of DSL broadband wireline communications. Designed to support the wide
deployment of Triple Play services such as voice, video, data, high definition television
(HDTV) and interactive gaming, VDSL2 enables operators and carriers to gradually,
flexibly, and cost efficiently upgrade existing xDSL-infrastructure.
ITU-T G.993.2 (VDSL2) is an enhancement to G.993.1 (VDSL) that permits the
transmission of asymmetric and symmetric (Full-Duplex) aggregate data rates up to 200
Mbit/s on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30 MHz.
VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at 'source' to 100
Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1640 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3280 ft), but degrades at a much slower
rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mile), its
performance is equal to ADSL2+.
ADSL-like long reach performance is one of the key advantages of VDSL2. LR-VDSL2
enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1-4 Mbit/s (downstream) to
subscribers located nearly 3 miles from the central office.
Existing neighborhoods wired with poorly maintained and aged copper infrastructure are
severely restricted. New neighborhoods built with fiber optic extensions are excluded
from DSL service altogether. This non-ubiquitous offering of service has left many
potential subscribers frustrated. Those that can subscribe are often enticed by the low
cost relative to cable modems. The average throughput on DSL is a dedicated 768kb
downstream and 256kB upstream per subscriber. Generally, DSL is more secure than
many competing technologies. Nevertheless, DSL is ATM based and inherently cannot
offer the same level of security that an IP based system (offering 3DES or AES
encryption) can approach.
Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) and Cable Modems
For cable TV companies, the more traditional manners of construction incorporate
coaxial cable with fiber optics; commonly referred to as hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC)
construction. Mainline coax cable is over lashed with fiber and the existing service drops
(coax) are spliced in. Current conditions in most Cable TV networks have HFC plant
operating at 870MHz with the capability of being upgraded to 1000MHz (1GHz).
36
Under green field or new-build conditions, there is no cost advantage to use HFC
although there may be a slight cost advantage to constructing an HFC systeFTTP.
There exists significant advantage for existing cable operators to leverage their current
coaxial plant while pushing fiber deeper and deeper into the network, thereby mitigating
stranded investment.
The traditional HFC system is typically designed in 200-2000 home “pockets”. This
means that the cable modem bandwidth must be shared with all subscribers within said
“pocket” or node. Based on a cursory review of the existing cable plant, one would
expect the node size to be approximately 360 subscribers. In other words, a 24Mb
service is actually shared by all 360 subscribers, each having multiple connections.
Also, the data service is not synchronous; offering shared 24Mb in the downstream
direction but only 3MB shared in the upstream direction. Other limitations include higher
operating cost, lower security and limited expandability/flexibility when compared to
FTTP. The Internet service is made possible by the deployment of DOCSIS cable
modem service.
Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)
DOCSIS is an international standard developed by CableLabs and equipment
manufacturers. DOCSIS defines the communications and operation support interface
requirements for a data over cable system. It permits the addition of high-speed data
transfer to an existing Cable TV (CATV) system. This technology is employed by many
cable television operators to provide Internet access over their existing hybrid fiber
coaxial (HFC) infrastructure. The first DOCSIS specification (version 1.0) was issued in
March of 1997, with revision 1.1 (adding Quality of Service [QoS] capabilities) following
in April of 1999. Because of increased demand for symmetric services such as IP
telephony, DOCSIS was revised to enhance upstream transmission speeds. In
December of 2001, DOCSIS 2.0 was released.
Over the past few years, cable companies began to experience loss in market share to
competitors having ADSL2+, VDSL, and FTTP systems. In August 2006, Cable Labs
released the DOCSIS 3.0 standard in an effort to stem the tide of waning market share.
The specification was revised to significantly increase transmissions speeds in both
directions and introduce support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). The version is
backward compatible; thereby virtually eliminating the fork lifting of existing cable
modems. Cross-version compatibility has been maintained across all versions of
DOCSIS, with the devices falling back to the highest supported version in common
between the cable modem and cable modem termination system (CMTS).
37
DOCSIS
Version
Downstream
Upstream
1.x
42.88 (38) Mbit/s
10.24 (9) Mbit/s
2.0
42.88 (38) Mbit/s
30.72 (27) Mbit/s
3.0 4channel
+171.52 (+152) Mbit/s
+122.88 (+108) Mbit/s
3.0 8channel
+343.04 (+304) Mbit/s
+122.88 (+108) Mbit/s
It should be noted that in order to provide the multiple bonded channel DOCSIS 3.0
service, a cable operator will likely have to make several upgrades including
replacement of the CMTS, removal or relocation base analog channels, and possibly
upgrades to the coax plant.
Fiber To The Premises (FTTP)
Of greatest significance is the idea that whatever transport technology is selected, it
must be capable of adapting to the future demands placed on the broadband
infrastructure. And, though the electronics hardware will undoubtedly require upgrades,
the underlying determinant should be to invest in a transport medium that will not require
“fork lifting” anytime over the next three decades. With this being the prime factor, there
is really only one viable option to consider: Fiber To The Premises. FTTP offers the
greatest scalability, reliability, and security. FTTP’s chief limitation has been initial cost.
However, the cost to install and operate such a system is steadily decreasing while
capabilities are increasing (“Moore’s Law”).
When looking at a comprehensive community wide system, FTTP has the ability to offer
the most viable set of services when compared to all other commercially available
information infrastructures. A good FTTP system can offer a minimum of 4 phone lines,
up to 400 channels of video, and up to 100Mb of Internet Access. Additionally all
services can be delivered with at least 99.999% reliability and employ state of the art
security and encryption techniques, combined with unparalleled quality of service.
Future scalability usually mitigates any marginal cost difference.
In its Industry Focus report, Deutsche Bank’s Global Equity Research group summed up
its findings on the future of telecommunications infrastructure by stating, “Fiber will be
38
the access medium for the next century.” 7 Among the prime benefits offered by an
FTTP deployment, Deutsche Bank found:
 Longevity - longer life expectancy. Conservative estimates place fiber’s life
expectancy at 100 years as compared with 25-30 for copper and coaxial cable.
 Less active components in the loop. Reduces issues with latency, down time
and technology refresh expenses.
 Scalability - Electronics can be replaced, without impacting the fiber infrastructure
or requiring replacement/overbuild once sufficient fiber is installed. Allows
flexible and targeted technology refresh to areas and/or customers demanding
more bandwidth.
Deutsche Bank also evaluated the benefits of taking just FTTC (Fiber to the Curb). They
found that this manner of construction would require a significant level of investment in
existing legacy copper circuits and that the active electronics within the local loop would
increase significantly. All this to provide VDSL service with the potential to reach 40
Mb/s (under optimal conditions), which Deutsche Bank (and others) expect to be
insufficient within the next five years.
In the 14 years from 1994 to 2008, the Ethernet revolution drove the progressive
development of higher bandwidth Ethernet standards from 10 Mb/s to 10 Gb/s.
Applications are the driving force behind these demands. With HDTV growing as the
most recent entry with the “killer App” (requiring 19 Mbps in its native format), delivery of
multiple streams of this content to the subscriber brings with it a whole new set of issues
for copper based facilities. Significant capital investment will be required of operators to
support “whole house TV” expectations of today’s customer.
Despite numerous upgrades to copper cables, fiber bandwidth and reach capability have
always remained significantly ahead of copper. Significant advancement in video
channel compression (known as MPEG 4) is reducing the practical bandwidth of a high
definition channel. This will accommodate HDTV over traditional HFC and copper plant
(compressing it down to 11 Mb from 19 Mb), but it comes at a high price. FTTP allows
the video service provider to forgo an expensive wholesale upgrade (of all channels to
MPEG 4) while not sacrificing any ability to offer full HDTV channel line-ups.
To increase speeds per customer, HFC networks will need to deploy more fiber deeper
into the network and increase the bandwidth of amplifiers to meet increased demand.
Comcast tells us that there are eighteen nodes in Pelican Bay, which indicates that the
node size is at roughly 361 subscribers. The actual rate received will differ widely with
the volume of vacancies. It is difficult to say how much of the 24Mbps download and
6Mbps upload that is shared by up 361 subscribers will be available at any given time.
By comparison, FTTP offers this 5.1 Gpbs capability for allocation exclusively to video
delivery. A second optical wavelength can provide up to 2.5 Gbps of Internet, phone,
plus a myriad of other IP applications to a group of homes typically between 16 or as
many as 64 by current designs. At Pelican Bay, only 16 homes will share the 2.5Gbps
connection.
7
FTTP-No Other Way to Entertain, Deutsche Bank Industry Focus Report for the Wire line Industry,
produced by Victor Shvets, Nigel Coe, CFA, and Andrew Kieley, CFA, published May 13, 2004.
39
Technology Determinants
Why Fiber to the Premise? Won’t Wireless Obsolete Everything
Else?
It might be tempting to think about a mobile network displacing wire line broadband, but
the idea is “a combination of speculation and reality,” said Arun Bhikshesvaran, CTO of
Ericsson AB (Nasdaq: ERIC) North America, during an interview with Light Reading.
“Mobility is becoming an increasingly important part of our lifestyle. But the convenience
of fixed broadband in terms of raw data rates is always going to be an advantage over
what you can get with wireless.”
Consumer behavior, too, will ensure that both types of broadband access remain
important. “There is a different kind of premium associated with high speed access at
home versus on the road,” Bhikshesvaran said. “At home you get rich communication
and entertainment experiences, whereas mobile is completely different. It is going to be
complementary; I don’t think it’ll be one versus the other.”
During one panel discussion about making the transition to fiber-to-the-home (FTTP) in
the U.S., an audience member asked whether wireless broadband deployments would
present a challenge to FTTP. “Looking around the world, it’s quite feasible that a multimegabit service that is reasonably priced could provide an interesting alternative to wire
line,” said Heavy Reading chief analyst Graham Finnie. “My view, though, is that it could
challenge wire line broadband in general, but not FTTP specifically.”
Bhikshesvaran elaborated further on the issue saying that wireless broadband is too
limited and can’t run the services necessary to challenge FTTP. “There is a physical
limit. You need the spectrum. In order to deliver 100 Mbit/s to 150 Mbit/s, you need 20
MHz, and there are hardly any carriers with a significant amount of that. So FTTP offers
compelling advantages.”8
8
Raymond McConville, Light Reading, Will Wireless Broadband Supplant FTTP?, May 14, 2008.
40
Market Analysis
Market Demand Environment
“The more users there are, the more likely it is people will be able to have
interesting new ways to receive doctors’ advices in the home. The more
affordable broadband technology is, the more innovative we can be with
education. It’s important that we stay on the cutting edge of technological
change, and one way to do so is to have a bold plan for broadband.”9
-President George W. Bush, March 2004
The focus has changed from simply “getting connected” to speed, reliability and
accessibility. Demand for increased bandwidth capacity, being widely touted as
“broadband”, has seen a marked increase across the nation. What is very clear and
becoming even clearer is that broadband connectivity has become the mantra for
progressive communities across the country. To see the progression of how this has
come about, the following statistical summary, compiled by the U.S. Department of
Commerce in their report, Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet
Adoption in the United States10 (released in November 2010), examined the use patterns
and identified the challenges that many communities are facing.








U.S. Internet connections overall are growing. The number of connections over
200 kbps in at least one direction increased by 28% in 2010 to nearly 169 million.
Between 2001 and 2009, broadband Internet use among households rose
sevenfold, from 9% to 64% of American households utilizing broadband Internet.
Over three-fourths (77 percent) of households had a computer – the principal
means by which households access the Internet – compared with 62 percent in
2003.
In October 2009, according to the Census Current Population Survey data, 63.5
percent (75.8 million) of U.S. households used a high-speed Internet –
“broadband” -- service (i.e., technologies that are faster than dial-up, such as
DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, and wireless). This represented a 25
percent increase from just two years earlier (50.8 percent in October 2007).
In January 2002, 55% of all Americans said they used email and that number
grew to 70% in 2011.
Even among the oldest Internet users (age 65+), 87% are search engine users.
According to a 2007 poll by Harris Interactive, 160 million Americans were using
the Internet to find health information – an increase of 37 percent since 2005.[2]
Harris Interactive estimates that 84 percent of all online adults have looked for
health information online.
More than 70 percent of U.S. adults use the Internet for making purchases online
and approximately 64 percent use the Internet for social networking. Online
9
Remarks by President George W. Bush at Homeownership Expo – New Mexico, given March 26, 2004, as
available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/
10
Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet Adoption in the United States, U. S. Department of
Commerce publication, November 2010.
41
banking has also shot up in popularity over the last ten years and is most
common with adults between the ages of 30 to 49.
The Internet has transformed our social and economic environment by providing an
important platform for innovation, economic growth, and social communication.
Residential use of broadband Internet access services has risen dramatically during the
past decade, demonstrating that the Internet plays a key role in the everyday lives of
many people.
The assumption has to be that the larger incumbents, capable of providing the desired
level of service, are either comfortable with the existing situation, unable to justify the
expense with projected profit goals, or a combination of both. Disappointingly though,
there appears to be minimal drive to pursue new telecommunication avenues. Pelican
Bay Foundation is the logical champion of such an undertaking.
One additional introductory point; there has been a large degree of consideration given
toward offering a system to the community that is presently unavailable through outside
vendors and that will offer the greatest chance of longevity. A build out of a fiber-to-thepremises (FTTP) network holds the promise that, even with technology changes, the
infrastructure will provide long term, cost effective service to Pelican Bay. A leading
investment research institute summarized its telecommunication industry findings by
stating that any technology investment that is not optical fiber based is insufficient in
meeting the projected demands of today and tomorrow.11
11
“FTTP – No Other Way to Entertain”, report funded and produced by Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. dated
May 13, 2004, in an industry focus evaluation report to wire line industry investors.
42
Market Drivers
Pelican Bay Demographics
U.S. Census data from 2012 provides a basis for the demographics of the Pelican Bay,
Florida area. A quick overview of the community is as follows:





Total housing units in Pelican Bay equal 6,500 (condominiums and single-family
homes).
o 72.6% of householders are over 65 years of age.
o Only 82 children reside within Pelican Bay.
Vacant units are 168 or 4.7%.
Pelican Bay’s total population is 13,000 residents seasonally.
Average household size is 1.76
The median family income is $102,468 compared to the national average of
$51,914.
Medical Community
Perhaps one quality of life area that has progressed more and offers some of the
greatest future potential regarding broadband usage is in the area of medical
technology. Whether it is a new manner of operation, cutting edge pharmaceutical
therapy, remote medical monitoring and health screening for all chronically ill patients or
simply updated research sorting, broadband affords great opportunities.
CNET News highlighted an example of this life-saving technology in a July report on a
routine cardiac surgery that was directed by a doctor in Honolulu on a patient located
3,500 miles away in a small military hospital on the island of Guam. The one caveat; the
real-time information, required for success in such a procedure, demanded a continuous
and reliable broadband connection capable of providing momentary data and imaging.
Dr. Berg, the supervising surgeon, commented that any delay in the transmission and
receipt of the real-time data, particularly regarding the pressure inside the heart, would
not be acceptable.12
As demand for medical services grows, Pelican Bay residents will likely experience an
increasing reliance on reliable, fast and expandable/adaptable Internet connectivity. In
addition to providing better inter- and intra-communications, within and between various
medical facilities, there is an increasing sense that securing records through systems
redundancy and offsite storage will be required.
Nothing has highlighted the importance of this more than the recent aftermath from
Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of the devastation and displacement, over 1 million
citizens had to start over regarding their medical history.13 This lack of electronically
available and portable records created an overwhelmingly difficult situation for health
care workers attempting to accurately diagnose and prescribe treatments. Additionally,
12
A Life-Saving Technology, provided by CNET News.com as reported by staff writers John Borland and
Jim Hu, July 26, 2004.
13
Leavitt: Katrina Demonstrates Need For e-Health Records, comments spoken by Michael Leavitt,
Secretary of Health and Human Services as reported by Bob Brewin on September 8, 2005, as available at
www.govhealthit.com
43
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations will
likely require Internet connectivity for questions and claims processing.
Policies designed to accelerate the use of broadband could save seniors more than
$800 billion by reducing health care costs. These benefits are as substantial as what the
federal government is likely to spend on homeland security over the next 25 years, and
under the right set of policies, could exceed what the U.S. currently spends annually for
health care for all its citizens.14 Early stage discussions have occurred with Naples
Community Hospital, which would be interested in pursuing possible joint venture
activities should a fiber optic network be built within Pelican Bay.
Residential Community
Extending capacity and broadband accessibility to the entire Pelican Bay community
weighs heavily on the side of building a strong infrastructure for the “public good”.
Payback is not measured immediately in profit, but in the value of being advantaged by
reliable access to Internet-available resources, premium video and economic voice
options. Coupled with the ability to share information, whether it is for emergency or
other services, Pelican Bay and its residents desire to be served with improved
informational services that will grow with new demands and applications.
Importance Of Development Amenities
FTTH Is Seen As A Prime New Housing Amenity (random broadband users)
CommunitiesTogether
38
Taking telecommunication access and services to the home has a broad range of
potential benefits. Despite the lack of what would be considered adequate broadband
available from current vendors, indications are good that Pelican Bay’s residential
14
“Great Expectations: Potential Economic Benefits To The Nation From Accelerated Broadband
Deployment To Older Americans And Americans With Disabilities,”
[http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive Litan_FINAL_120805.pdf] December 2005.
44
population is ready to migrate once a reliable and reasonably priced source becomes
available.
This access is being driven mainly by home-based users, which are continuing to seek
increasing amounts of information from Internet sources. It is the senior portion of the
U.S. population that is the fastest growing user group. The percent of seniors using the
Internet escalated 47% between 2000 and 2004 according to a report published by Pew
Internet & American Life Project15, a widely renown and highly regarded statistical
research institute located in Washington, D.C. A comprehensive 2009 survey by AARP
found that 78% of adults aged 50-64 and 48% over 65 use the Internet16. In addition to
email, seniors are utilizing online resources at an ever-expanding rate. Key among
these are health search/research (57%), work (35%), e-shopping (44%), travel
reservations (41%), social networking sites (21%) and on-line banking (34%).
As both the national and local statistics have shown, use of the Internet is gaining favor
in all population segments. We are becoming more dependent on being wired and those
who are wired are demanding new applications, driving demand for increased bandwidth
and reliability.
Market Demand
Data/Voice
The predominant local telephone provider in Pelican Bay’s service territory is
CenturyLink. The network is aging and does not reflect state-of-the-art communications
services. Many condominium associations and individual owners have expressed
dissatisfaction with this service.
Video
Comcast is the incumbent video service provider in Pelican Bay for basic TV services
operating under a contract that runs into 2015.
The underground wiring used by Comcast is 10-30 years old. It is fragile and difficult for
them to maintain leading to signal quality problems. Comcast’s reluctance to upgrade its
outdated infrastructure is running counter to the bandwidth needs that Pelican Bay
owners are creating as they change the way they watch TV and movies (HDTV, 3D,
Netflix) and use the Internet.
Applications Based Society
Market demand will most certainly be driven by consumer pull, given the lack of any
interest or initiative by the existing incumbents to offer any meaningful broadband
options to date. Once a truly converged infrastructure is deployed, many new uses and
services will be discovered.
15
Older Americans and the Internet. Published March 25, 2004 by Susannah Fox, Director of Research,
Pew Internet & American Life Project, as available at www.pewinternet.org
16
Internet use Among Midlife and Older Adults: An AARP Bulletin Poll, December 2009.
45
Among the primary drivers today and in the near term, consumers are looking to
broadband for the following:
1. Entertainment
 High Definition Television (HDTV)
 A choice of thousands of IP digital video channels including “narrow casting” to a
very select audience.
 Video on Demand
 Television with interactive elements, audience participation, choice of endings.
 Extreme gaming, multiplayer with full graphics and latency removed
 Virtual Art Museum
 Customizable radio play lists
 Cinematic Television (more than 3 times better than HDTV)
 Holographic entertainment/lecture centers
2. Work/Telecommuting
 Home/ Satellite offices equipped with full motion video conferencing
 High speed virtual private Local Area Network to connect several buildings for
same company.
 Automated site backup and data storage
3. Health/Telemedicine Medicine
 Remote doctor visits involving transfer of data, and/or video conferencing (for
face-to-face interaction with the doctor)
 Remote chart review/signing
 High Speed transfer of medical imaging to remote specialist.
 Monitoring of senior, or chronically ill patients.
 Three dimensional modeling linked to remote real time manufacture of
replacement parts using stereo lithography.
 Constant or periodic monitoring of senior of infirm patients and chronically ill
patients
4. Community/Social Interaction
 Online voting
 Community meetings on local issues
 Video board meetings for non-profit organizations
 Video arraignment
 EGovernment Services
 Realtime access to Geographic Information Systems Data
5. Commerce
 Much more advanced Internet sites with full motion video
 TV programs or commercials that tie directly to Internet sites
 More advanced online shopping with movable video views of merchandise on
command, etc.
 New advertising models – watch an ad, answer a question, and receive credit on
a phone bill, etc.
46



Automated applications – leasing some of the home computer space for huge
peer-to-peer computing applications (distributive computing power)
Automated applications – computers talking to computers gathering information
on lowest prices for utilities, food purchases, etc.
Video focus groups
6. Security
 Video monitoring of home, children, or pets when away
 Video monitoring of schools, businesses, etc. from home
 Video inspection of home after an alarm goes off
 Nightly secured back-up of electronic materials
7. Education
 Video lectures on demand
 Complex game-oriented learning and simulations
 Interactive classrooms and virtual classrooms using video chat formats with
multiple pictures of students on screen at the same time (or virtual representation
of the student)
 Instant downloading of books
 Remote parent-teacher video conferences
 International video pals
 Downloading of multi-media materials
 Parental monitoring of children at school
8. Utility
 Automatic Meter Reading
 Outage alert and analysis for power restoration.
 Energy Demand Management
 Enhanced SCADA services
What are the Risks?
Pelican Bay faces a variety of risks in the broadband/information services business.
Some of the risks are directly manageable by Pelican Bay, while others are not.




Timing
Since Pelican Bay is not directly competing for market share, timing is less
important. The majority of customers will likely enjoy a significant improvement
in the quality of the service they receive while reducing cost.
Based on available public documents, several other communities in the area are
pursuing similar strategies. It will be possible to follow their progress.
Given the contract in place with the incumbent provider, Pelican Bay should
develop its deployment plan so that the system is fully functional and can begin
serving customers immediately after the term of the contract. At expiration, said
contract will convert to a month to month basis.
Pelican Bay is likely entering the market at a very good time.
o Fiber optic costs are up slightly but are expected to remain stable with
shorter delivery times in 2014.
o Moore’s Law continues to drive down electronics prices.
47
o
o
o
o
o
o
Little regulatory control exists.
Financing costs are still relatively low – should they be needed.
Local Installation contractors are not overly busy.
No need to be concerned about competition since the member services
fee will guarantee coverage of the loan and operational expenses.
Public interest is extremely high.
The Comcast contract automatically increases 5% per annum through the
life of the contract; making the value proposition even more compelling
over time.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The project cannot be completed until the existing service
contract expires. Pelican Bay does not have much control over when the project is
undertaken . Given that the timing risk is only moderately likely and has a moderately
low negative impact, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “H” (initial risk)
and “h” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.
Market Acceptance

Validity of financial and marketing assumptions:
o As with any projection, changing assumptions will vary the projected
results.
o It is recommended that Pelican Bay periodically check the assumptions,
update them as required, and adjust product offerings as demanded by
the members.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: So long as the owners are satisfied with the planned services,
risk related to market acceptance is diminimus. All members will be required to take the
bulk offering(s). Given that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required.
Please refer to “I” (initial risk) and “i” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.
Competition




Unforeseen competition has little effect on the acceptance of Pelican Bay's
products since the cost recovery method consists of a single member services
fee payable quarterly.
The quantifiable risk is related to image and perception. Comcast has a
reputation for investing large sums of money and resources to publish
disinformation to property members about the validity, need and soundness of
the property’s project.
Pelican Bay can also expect Comcast may offer steeply discounted prices for
short periods; then return to standard pricing with little long term improvement in
customer service.
Clearly communicating the value proposition and managing expectations through
construction and service turn-up to your members will be instrumental to the
project’s success.

Risk Mitigation Strategy: Be sure to clearly communicate the offerings and value to each
owner. Because the services are bulked and therefore a requirement, risk related to
competition is diminimus. All members will be required to take the bulk offering(s).
48
Given that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “J”
(initial risk) and “j” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.






Early Implementation of Technology
There may be risks associated with the early implementation of a relatively new
technology prior to it reaching a level of market acceptance and product
availability.
FTTP has become a proven technology, but continues to see a marked degree of
system improvements, leaving open the need to compare and contrast the
various vendor solutions to insure longer-term compatibility. Much of this risk
can be mitigated by carefully choosing the technology partner based on several
factors including but not limited to: profitability, management staff and structure,
employee turnover, commitment to R&D, active in developing standards
committees, experience with similar projects, and applicable technology.
The industry has adopted two different PON delivery methods, each with differing
standards. Some manufacturers have products of both standards that cohabitate
well.
A new, more elegant solution for MDU’s is nearing development. Although the
technology will not be generally available until late 2014, the basic premise is
generally available in China today. IEEE will bring it into standards committee
this summer. It should emerge as a front runner next summer.
Cost to deploy FTTP continues to decline. Q2 2012 saw the beginning of almost
commodity-like pricing for the Optical Network Terminals (the device at the
member’s home).
Adequate fiber plant layout will be critical to insure long term usefulness and
adaptation with changing electronics.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: No negative impact is expected. Pelican Bay’s project timing
may in fact improve the existing cost model because of key improvements in service to
MDU’s slated for late 2014. Risk related to early implementation is diminimus. Given
that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “K” (initial
risk) and “k” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.




Obsolescence
FTTP leads the edge in the access market for converged services.
Care must be taken to insure that the outside plant is flexible for future
applications.
Fiber layout architecture is determined mainly by the FTTP electronics (PON vs.
Hybrid PON, “Homerun” vs. “Tapped”, etc.) A good design will mitigate most of
this risk.
The laws of physics and environmental issues will not allow wireless, satellite, or
copper cable to supplant fiber optic’s superiority.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The Initial risk is classified as moderately negative impact with
a moderate likelihood. At least preliminary engineering design should be completed
prior to final decision so installation and that firm quotes may be obtained. The engineer
should have a real understanding of the capabilities and scale of each technology as
well as an awareness of the manufacturer’s product roadmap and industry’s technology
49
road map. This strategy will mitigate nearly all risk of obsolescence. Please refer to “N”
(initial risk) and “n” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.






Regulatory Issues
Federal (FCC primarily) initiatives indicate a “hands off” approach to regulating
Internet and other “information services”.
Presently, they are favorably supportive of such initiatives at the local, community
level and this will likely continue.
Pursuit of state-level initiatives by for-profit providers, aimed at blocking or
significantly impeding municipal sponsorship of broadband installations, will likely
continue as long as incumbents place their efforts in seeking protectionist
policies over upgrading outdated plant.
Since Pelican Bay is a private homeowner’s association, no regulatory barriers
are believed to exist today.
Legal Issues
It will be important that Pelican Bay Foundation thoroughly understand its rights
and responsibilities with regard to constructing a network versus the continued
use of existing incumbents. Questions like:
o “Must the existing provider be allowed to stay?”
o “What is the system structure such that eminent domain cannot be declared?”
o “Is a Certificate of Territorial Authority required to own the network if others
are hired to operate?”
o “Is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier status required?”
Pelican Bay can navigate these treacherous waters by engaging quality legal
counsel who are experienced with incumbent issues in Florida.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a moderate likelihood with a moderate to
low negative impact. Hiring experienced legal counsel to help navigate the legal and
regulatory waters during the planning stage will reduce the likelihood significantly.
Because the political landscape is always changing in Washington, this risk can never
be completely mitigated. Please refer to “G” (initial risk) and “g” (mitigated risk) of Figure
3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.


Interest Rates – Should Financing be Considered
The current interest rate environment remains at historical lows.
The risk of interest rates rising between the planning stages and the final
issuance of debt is much higher than the likelihood of them decreasing.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a medium likelihood with a medium negative
impact. Little can be done to control this risk. Please refer to “M” (initial risk) and “m”
(mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.

Failure to Launch
Premature commitment - The project could be abandoned at any time for any
reason. All costs incurred to that point would be classified as stranded
investment. This business plan is a vital tool to understanding the project,
performing thoughtful and methodical planning, and tempering an emotional
commit prematurely.
50

Loss of critical partner(s) – Care will be taken to vet each potential partner. The
selection will be based on qualifications, service quality, product availability,
experience and overall value to the members. After selection, a contract will be
put in place that holds each party accountable and encourages each to perform
admirably. Customer service and network performance standards will be
included in any contract. Take-over language may be appropriate with some
potential vendors.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a low likelihood with a high negative impact.
Experience, planning, preliminary design, and project management are key tenants
needed to control this risk. Please refer to “D” (initial risk) and “d” (mitigated risk) of
Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.

Cost Overruns
Since construction will not begin until April of 2014, cost increases in labor and
materials are likely. The industry in general has been undervalued for several
years. Only in Q3 of 2011 did the industry experience protracted delivery delays
and marked cost increases in both labor and materials. The business model has
taken a conservative approach by using the highest known unit price, adjusted
for location. It is important to note that the sample project was subject to Federal
jurisdiction and therefore subject to the Davis-Bacon wage law. Labor costs in
the model are 9%-15% high in present dollars when compared to competitive
local wages.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a medium likelihood with a moderately high
negative impact. The best mitigation strategy is to complete preliminary design. Use the
design to secure firm quotes, develop detailed project schedules and work breakdown
structures needed to control the project’s scope, schedule, and budget. Also a detailed
site survey should be conducted to assess the suitability of the existing premise coaxial
plant. Planning, as well as project and construction management are pivotal to
mitigating cost overruns or delays. Please refer to “A,B,C,E” (initial risk) and “a,b,c,e”
(mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix.




System Will Not Work
By some unfamiliar with the industry, there is a perception that the system is
cutting edge and complicated, and that there is a risk that it will not work as
envisioned.
The risk is not real. The FTTP industry has made great advances over the last
15 years.
The reality is that more than 22 million homes are passed in North America
alone, with more than 8 million homes subscribing to services delivered over
fiber. Verizon has clearly made the most significant investment by any single
company to date.
The greatest numbers of entities deploying the technology are small Telco and
cable operators. Developers were a significant contributor prior to the housing
downturn. They are expected to be a significant investor in FTTP as the housing
market returns.
Risk Mitigation Strategy: Not needed as the launch of these systems is well
documented. This risk is relegated to perception only. Applying the aforementioned
51
strategies will insure a successful startup. Additionally, contracts should have
performance clauses. The foundation may want to entertain some level of
performance bonding.
<< Lower Likelihood Higher >>
Risk Mitigation Matrix
B
A
Mm
G
N
C
Hh
F
E
e
c
a
f
b
g
n
D
Ii,Jj, Kk d
<< Lower Consequence / Negative Impact Higher >>
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
M
N
Cost estimate of mainline construction exceeded
Cost estimate of customer premise wiring exceeded
Cost estimate of electronics exceeded
Failure to Launch
Internet connection delayed/problematic
Customer service quality is substandard
Legal/Regulatory challenges
Timing
Market Acceptance
Competition
Early Implementation
Interest Rates
Obsolescence
Figure 3 ‐ Risk Mitigation Matrix
52
Legal and Regulatory
There are some issues that should be reviewed by legal and regulatory experts who are
specifically familiar with communications law. Four recommendations have been
provided and are included below in alphabetical order:
James Baller is president of the Baller Herbst Law Group, a national law firm based in
Washington, DC, and Minneapolis, MN. The Firm specializes in communications and
related matters, including telecommunications, cable television, high-speed data
communications, the Internet, wireless communications, right-of-way management, pole
and conduit attachments, barriers to the public-sector entry into communications,
bankruptcy, privacy, and antitrust.
Baller’s clients include the American Public Power Association, the National Association
of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), regional and state utility
associations and municipal leagues, and numerous public and private entities in more
than 35 states. He was also the founder and president of the US Broadband Coalition, a
large and diverse consortium whose work contributed significantly to the development of
America's first national broadband plan. He has also served as a consultant to Google
on its Fiber for Communities initiative.
Christopher Cinnamon is managing member of Cinnamon Mueller in Chicago. Mr.
Cinnamon concentrates his practice in the representation of cable telecommunications
companies. He represents clients before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and state and local regulatory bodies. Given his extensive knowledge and
experience, Cinnamon is frequently asked to speak on topics including local cable
franchising and broadcast signal carriage.
Cinnamon has authored numerous articles including “Broadcast Signal Carriage and
Content Regulation: 2005 Update” published by the Practising Law Institute (PLI), a nonprofit continuing legal education organization. He is also a faculty member of PLI.
Thomas Cohen is a partner in Kelly Drye’s Washington, D.C. office. His practice
focuses on matters involving communications, including telecommunications, wireless
and media, the Internet, privacy and government relations.
Mr. Cohen has more than 30 years of experience in the communications and
telecommunications industry sector, first as a government policy maker, serving for over
a decade as assistant general counsel for legislation at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and as senior counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee. He
then was a founder and principal in firms assessing and developing communications and
telecommunications properties and advising businesses. At Kelley Drye, Mr. Cohen
assists clients with a variety of aspects of communications law, including federal and
state administrative and legislative advocacy, business-related legal matters and
litigation.
Lila A. Jaber is a Practice Leader, Government Affairs at Gunster Law Firm
Tallahassee, FL. Ms. Jaber is a former Commissioner and Chairperson of the Florida
Public Service Commission and recently chair of Leadership Florida. Ms. Jaber also
advises clients on issues before the Florida Attorney General’s Office, the Florida
53
Legislature, and the Office of the Governor. Ms. Jaber is knowledgeable in public affairs,
energy, natural gas, water, telecommunications, and broadband policies.
Additionally, Matthew J. Feil, of the same firm will team with Ms. Jabber. Mr. Feil is the
former General Counsel at FDN Communications and served as Senior Counsel at
Southern States Utilities. His experience includes, but is not limited to, negotiating
interconnection agreements with communications clients, representing energy clients
(such as natural gas and renewable energy concerns) in cost-of-service issues, and
negotiating purchase power agreements for renewable energy firms. He has litigated
some of the largest cases in PSC history and the largest water and wastewater rate
case in Florida history.
The scope of legal and regulatory review should, at a minimum, include the following:
1. Comcast contract
a. Termination language. Pelican Bay pays for services until February 1,
2015 after which, there is no cost to exit. The exit strategy should be
explored in case this is the direction chosen.
b. Comcast has the right to remove their network, if they chose to do so, as
long as they repair any damage they create in the process. The timing,
implications and likelihood of this should be well understood.
c. The wiring inside the buildings and inside the units belongs to Pelican
Bay and its owners. The demarcation point and scope of use for these
premises facilities should be verified.
d. Legal should verify that the conduit connecting the Comcast distribution
pedestals in many of the associations with the individual buildings is part
of the “Premises Facilities” as defined in the contract.
e. Verify that the contract can be extended on a month-to-month basis for up
to six months.
2. Florida law covering the ability of a HOA/condominium association to bind its
members for Internet and telephone services, as they have been able to do for
TV.
a. Address agreements that Pelican Bay would have condominium
associations and homeowners sign to approve a right-of-way across their
property for installation of the network.
b. Address if the existing provider must be allowed to stay.
c. Describe the system structure such that eminent domain cannot be
declared.
d. Verify if a Certificate of Territorial Authority is required to own the network
if others are hired to maintain and operate.
e. Verify if a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier status is required under
the same conditions.
3. Pelican Bay can navigate these treacherous waters by engaging quality legal
counsel who are experienced with incumbent issues Nationally and in Florida.
Large Incumbent Service Providers
One of the primary reasons for Pelican Bay to consider investing in the fiber
infrastructure is that the large incumbent service providers have not been responsive in
investing in FTTP technology on behalf of the residents. They have had long standing
presence in the community, are very large, and control a significant segment in their
54
respective markets. Unfortunately, past history reveals that large amounts of marketing
dollars may be used to discourage residents from embracing alternate methods.
Recently, the Vineyards experienced this tactic. A strong communication plan by
Pelican Bay will be essential to convey truth and instill confidence to its owners. For a
more detailed analysis of the existing incumbents, please refer to Appendix 2 –
Incumbent Analysis.
Organizational Structure & Recommendations
Pelican Bay desires to own the network as a means of controlling the supply chain and
hence the cost and quality. Internet services would be provided to all members. The
ongoing management effort would be minimal. It is recommended that Pelican Bay:
 Construct at least the passive portion of the fiber optic network.
 Construct the electronics layer of the network.
 Construct/lease the Internet connection needed to acquire lowest cost, highest
performance Internet from the Network Access Point in Miami.
 Provide for one part time staff to allocate 10 hours per week to contracts and
service quality monitoring.
 Outsource all other matters to a qualified service provider who will provide the
following:
o Basic TV in bulk bundle
o Alternatively, HDTV in bulk bundle
o Advanced TV in ala carte
o Telephone in ala carte
o Dedicated customer service representatives
o Dedicated technical staff
o Dedicated installers
o Monitoring and management of the entire network including fiber
o All back office and billing functions
o All regulatory reporting functions
o All maintenance and repair of the entire network including fiber
55
Appendix 1 – 2012 Community Survey
This section intentionally left blank.
Pelican Bay intends to perform a community survey to gauge the needs of its residents.
The community survey has not been completed and was not available at the time of this
report’s publication.
Appendix 1 - 2012 Community Survey
Appendix 1 - 2012 Community Survey
Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis
Appendix 3 – Financial Model - Loan
Until recently, both incumbents expressed no interest in exploring alternate service
options with Pelican Bay. However, as of mid June 2012, each have softened their
previously hard line stances. Both are willing to entertain more flexible options ranging
from renegotiated contracts to providing manages services and content across
Foundation owned infrastructure. Due diligence will be required when reviewing all
potential candidates.
Of the incumbents, the largest two include Comcast and Century Link. Both of these
conglomerates have had long standing presence in the community, both are very large
and control a significant segment in their respective markets. Both are also a primary
reason Pelican Bay exploring other infrastructure based options.
CenturyLink
Since acquiring Embarq in 2009, CenturyLink has had a presence in Southwest Florida.1
Headquartered in Monroe,
LA, CenturyLink is an S&P
500 company and is included
among the Fortune 500 list of
America’s
largest
corporations.2
The
company
provides
broadband,
voice and
wireless
services
to
consumers and businesses
across the country. It also
offers
advanced
entertainment services under
the CenturyLinkTM PrismTM TV and DIRECTV brands and home security services.
PrismTM TV is a 100 percent digital TV service providing access to more than 240 local,
premium and high-definition channels delivered over CenturyLink’s managed network.
CenturyLink
is
the
fourth
largest
telecommunications company in the United
States in terms of lines served, behind AT&T,
Verizon Communications, and Comcast.3
High speed internet and telephone provider
Qwest was acquired by CenturyLink in 2011.
The addition of Quest made the new company
1
CenturyTel and EMBARQ Complete Merger – Company Press Release – July 1, 2009
(http://ir.centurytel.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112635&p=irol=newsArticle_Print&ID=1303691&highlight=)
2
CenturyLink website, news.centurylink.com, May 26, 2011
3
Leichtman Research Group, “Research Notes,”
(http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/research/notes04_2012.pdf) First Quarter 2012, pg. 6, CenturyLink (#4)
with 9,040,000 residential phone lines.
1
owner to 17 million access lines, 5 million broadband customers, and 1.4 million video
subscribers across 37 states.4
One of the greatest dissatisfactions present subscribers of CenturyLink express is the
poor customer service they experience. The American Customer Satisfaction Index
(ACSI) gave them a rating of 83 (out of 100) in 1995 to a low in 2006 of 64 to the most
recent rating in 2011 of 70.5 Some CenturyLink customers in North Naples went without
landline service for ten days after an electrical storm on August 23, 2011 even after daily
reports.6 Customer service representatives told customers there was a massive outage
and the company was working on it. CenturyLink later admitted their agents gave
incorrect information to the Naples customers and promised that the situation would be
investigated.
Comcast
Comcast Corporation is the largest cable operator, home Internet service provider, and
third largest home telephone service provider in the United States, providing cable
television, broadband Internet, telephone service and home security to both residential
and commercial customers in 40 states and the District of Columbia.7 Comcast is
headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, and also has corporate offices in Atlanta, Detroit,
Denver, and Manchester, NH.8As of September 30, 2010, Comcast serves a total of 22.9
million cable customers, 16.7 million high-speed Internet customers. At the start of
2012, Comcast supplied 9.34 million residential telephone lines.9
Xfinity is the name for the residential triple play services in Comcast’s largest markets,
which include the company’s digital cable, cable internet access, and cable telephone
services.10 In addition to residential consumers, Comcast also services businesses as
customers, targeting both small (fewer than 20 employees) and mid-sized businesses of
20-500 employees.
Over a number of years, Comcast has become majority owner of Spectacor (which
includes the NHL Philadelphia Flyers), Comcast SportsNet (in Chicago, Michigan,
Philadelphia, Washington DC/Baltimore, New England, the San Francisco Bay Area, the
Pacific Northwest and metro Sacramento), as well as E! Entertainment Television, Style
4
Higginbotham, Stacey (2010-04-22). “CenturyTel to Buy Quest for $22.4 Billion”
(http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/centurytel-to-buy-qwest-to-become-a-big-bell/). GIGAOM.
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/centurytel-to-buy-qwest-to-become-a-big-bell/.
5
American Customer Satisfaction Index
(http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150&Item)
6
“CenturyLink customers experience outage”, WZVN-HD News, (http://www.abc7.com/story/15386706/century-link-customers-experience-mass-outage)
7
Comcast 2008 form 10-K
(http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/845254023x0xS1193125%2D09%2D33975/1166691/filing.
pdf), files.shareholder.com
8
Comcast Corporate Overview
(http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/corporateoverview/corporateoverview.html).
Comcast.com.
9
Leichtman research Group, “Research Notes,”
(http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/research/notes04_2012.pdf) First Quarter 2012, pg. 5.
10
Bray, Hiawatha (February 13, 2010). “Comcast enters rebranding territory”
(http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/02/13/comcast_enters_rebranding_territory/).
The Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/02/13/comcast_enters_rebranding_territory/.
2
Network, G4, The Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network (formerly the Outdoor life
Network, then Versus). In 2006, Comcast started a new sports channel—SportsNet
New York—in the greater New York City region, in partnership with the New York Mets
and time Warner Cable.
Comcast also has a variety network known as Comcast network, available exclusively to
Comcast and Cablevision subscribers. The channel shows news, sports, and
entertainment and places with an emphasis in Philadelphia and the
Baltimore/Washington, D.C. areas, though the channel is also available in New York,
Pittsburgh, and Richmond. In August 2004. Comcast started a channel called CET
(Comcast Entertainment Television), available only to Colorado Comcast subscribers,
and focusing on life in Colorado. it also carries some national hockey league (NHL) and
National Basketball Association (NBA) games when Altitude Sports & Entertainment is
carrying the NHL or NBA. In January 2006, CET became the primary channel for
Colorado’s Emergency Alert System in the Denver Metro Area.11 Further acquisitions
included a deal with GE to become NBC Universal’s majority owner (51%)12; a deal to
acquire MGM and its affiliate studio, United Artists, to create an additional outlet to carry
MGM/UA’s material for cable and Internet distribution; an agreement with Disney and
ESON Media networks to add ESPNU to its Digital Classis level of service in time for the
start of the 2009 college football season.13
These
aggressive
and
diverse
acquisitions may have contributed to a
poor Accounting
and Governance
Rating (AGR). Comcast Corporation is
currently in the 29th percentile among all
companies in North America, indicating
higher accounting and governance risk
than 71% of companies.14 Comcast
reported first quarter 2012 profit
increases of 30% due to an increase in
high-speed Internet customers.15
In 2004 and 2007, the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast
had the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the
country, including the Internal Revenue service. however, the ACSI indicates that
almost half of all cable customers (regardless of company) have registered complaints,
and that cable is the only industry to score below 60 in the ACSI.16 Comcast’s customer
Service Rating by the ACSI surveys indicate that the company’s customer service has
not improved since the surveys began in 2001. Analysis of the surveys states that
“Comcast is one of the lowest scoring companies in ACSI. As its customer satisfaction
11
Comcast – Wikipedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast)
Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Jun97/ComcasPR.mspx). Microsoft.com
(1997-06-09).
13
Comcast adds ESPNU and ESPN360.Com to line up with content on television, on demand and online”
(http://www.espnmedizone.com/press_releases/2009_05_may/20090519_COMCASTADDSESPNUANDES
PN360.COMTOLINEUPWITHCONTENT.htm). espnmediazone.com, Comcast press release, May 19, 2009.
14
Comcast – Blackboard May 9, 2012 (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/comcast).
15
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/05/comcast-corp-earnings-.html
16
The American Customer Satisfaction Index, First Quarter, 2004
(http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86&Intemid=90)
12
3
eroded by 7% over the past year, revenue increased by 12%.” The ACSI analysis also
addresses this contradiction, stating that “Such pricing power usually comes with some
level of monopoly protection and most cable companies have little competition at the
local level. this also means that a cable company can do well financially even though its
customers are not particularly satisfied.”17,18 In 2009 Comcast rebounded on its ACSI
rating for television and Internet services, moving ahead of Charter communications and
into a tie with Time Warner Cable.19
While Comcast does operate some of its own customer service call centers, it also
outsources customer service and some technical support to Convergys inc and until
recently Transcom worldwide, both third party call center companies.
On October 1, 2008, J.D. Power and Associates published its annual customer
satisfaction survey for the nation’s top 10 largest cable and satellite television providers.
Comcast scored in the bottom 5 for each region of the United states, including 10th in the
East Region.20 One of the largest internet based consumer-review services,
Rateitall.com reports the average consumer review of Comcast as 1.7 out of 5 stars,
based on a total of 409 review to date (2010).21
Comcast has made efforts to improve customer satisfaction, including the Comcast
Cares Digital Team. The Team began when then Customer Service Manager Frank
Eliason decided Twitter would be an ideal way to communicate with customers.22
In summary, Comcast has become a very large company. One of the main benefits to
their sheer size has been their ability to and focus on the direct acquisition of much of
the available content. This enables them to control its single largest expense. Wether
that cost is shared with both stockholders and customers remains to be seen.
Conversely, Comcast’s size has led to a plethora of communication and customer
services problems that they are now working to mitigate.
17
American Customer Satisfaction Index, First Quarter, 2007
(http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=168)
18
American Customer Satisfaction Index, Scores by Company: Comcast Corporation
(http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Comcast+Corpo
ration&i=Cable+%26+Satellite+TV)
19
Scores By Company – Comcast
(http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=comcast&i=Cabl
e+%26+Satellite+TV), ACSI, 2009.
20
J.D. Power Releases 2008 residential Television Service Satisfaction Survey
(http://news.ecoustics/com/bbs/messages/10381/518826.html). News.ecoustics.com.
21
“Rate It All: Comcast primary rating.” (http://www.rateitall.com/i-25506-comcast.aspx). 2010. http.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-25506-comcast.aspx. Retrieved Dcember 15, 2010. Rate it all’s listing for Comcast
in its primary Comcast listing.
22
Reisner, Rebecca (January 13, 2009). “comcast’s Twitter Man”
(http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090113_373506.htm). Bloomberg
Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090113_373506.htm.
4
Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan)
Capital Cost Estimate
Preliminary Site Survey
Access Electronics Estimate
Core Switch / Router Estimate
Core Servers Estimate
Head End Building Estimate
Mainline Fiber Construction Estimate
Wholesale Internet Estimate
Transport Electronics Estimate
Monthly Cash Flow – Loan Model
Annual Cash Flow – Loan Model
Amortization Schedule
Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Loan Model
Appendix 3
Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate
Build (Mo.)
Depr (yr)
in 2014 Dollars
4
25
152,902
75,510
18,176
59,215
2
5
$
2,490,133
10
7
$
$
1,157,468
1,332,665
$
$
$
2,729,657
555,304
555 304
2,174,353
$
$
$
815,595
206,402
609,194
5
20
$
119,176
5
0
2
5
Head End
$
Cost
231,323
$
Switch Route (includes firewalls, switches and routers)
$
Multiplexing gear for transport to Miami NAP
$
Servers (includes servers, SANs, VMWare, Solar Winds, TFTP, DNS, D $
Location at Community Center
Core
GEPON Gear (1G/1G)
Shelf
SFPs
Control Cards
GEPON OIM
GEPON-4x PIM
Power Supply
Patch Cords
OLT (chassis, line cards, SFPs, PWR, patch cords...)
ONT (indoor with 1RF/MoCA)
Materials
M
t i l
Labor
Materials
Labor
11 20
Cable, connectors, consumables…
Equipment & Tools
Other
Small Tools & Test Eqpt.
$
$
$
Subtotal
$
1
6,538,785
CAPEX
Appendix 3
Engineering
Engineering (5.7%) (assumes modest permitting)
Construction Management & Startup
Construction Management (6.3%)
Implementation and Startup (3.0%)
Total Capital Cost
$
372,800
$
$
$
608,164
412,000
196,164
$
7,519,749
$
40,000
11
12
Other Costs
Legal and Admin
Total Estimated Cost of the Project
$ 7,559,749
Blended Depreciation
14.51 years
174 months
2
CAPEX
Appendix 3
Number of
Association by name
Biltmore
Brighton
Cap Ferrat
Carlysle
Chateaumere Royale
Claridge
Contessa
Coronado
Dorchester
Glenview
Grosvenor
Heron
Marbella
Marquesa
Montenero
Remington
Salerno
St Kitt
Kitts
St Laurent
St Lucia
St Maarten
St Marissa
St Nicole
St Pierre
St Raphael
St Tropez
Stratford
Toscana
Trieste
Windsor
L'Ambiance
Barrington
Barrington Club
Bay Colony Shores
Breakwater
Cambridge
Georgetown
Jamestown
Oakmont
Pebble Creek
Pelican Bay Woods
Pinecrest
Pointe II
Type
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
Hi h Ri
High
Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
High Rise
House
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Location
BC
BC
SW
BC
SW
NW
BC
NW
SW
S
SW
S
NW
BC
NW
BC
BC
SW
NW
SW
SW
SW
S
NW
NW
S
S
BC
BC
BC
N
NE
NE
BC
N
SE
SE
NE
NE
NW
SE
SE
N
Buildings
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
60
1
66
1
3
35
10
130
1
117
84
1
Doors per
Building
76
76
111
76
60
82
77
100
86
152
102
41
124
39
134
75
69
97
108
70
90
97
97
105
164
52
82
65
105
32
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
# of Floors Doors per
Units with doors
76
20
76
20
111
22
76
20
60
15
82
21
77
20
100
20
86
14
152
11
102
17
41
21
124
20
39
13
134
18
75
20
69
17
97
19
108
21
70
15
90
19
97
20
97
20
105
21
164
19
52
13
82
21
65
17
105
18
32
18
1
1
60
1
1
1
66
1
1
1
3
1
35
1
10
1
130
1
1
1
117
1
84
1
1
1
Floor
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
6
14
6
2
6
3
8
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
4
4
4
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Utility
ONT-E888RTN
Assuming up
to 8 ports
used per
Closets
7
14
7
14
8
16
7
14
5
10
7
14
7
14
7
14
5
12
6
19
6
13
7
7
7
16
4
5
9
18
7
12
6
9
7
14
7
14
5
9
7
12
7
13
7
13
7
14
14
21
5
7
7
11
6
9
9
14
9
9
Aurora ONT Details
Total
MDU
Ports
112
112
128
112
80
112
112
112
96
152
104
56
128
40
144
96
72
112
112
72
96
104
104
112
168
56
88
72
112
72
Strande
d Ports
Notes
ONT-E1321X-RTN
36
Assumes 2 ONTs per closet, each serving up to 8 Uni
36
17
36
20
30
35
12
10
0
2
15
4
1
10
21
3
15
4
2
6
7
7
7
4
4
6
7
7
40
1
60
1
66
1
3
35
10
130
1
117
84
1
Prelim Survey
Appendix 3
Number of
Association by name
Pointe Verde
St. Vincents
Strand
The Village
Waterford
Avalon
Avalon
Avalon
Barrington Club
Breakwater
Calais at Pelican Bay
Cannes
Chanteclair Maisonettes
C i t R
Covington
Row
Crescent
Glencove
Hyde Park
L'Ambiance
L'Ambiance
L'Ambiance
Laurel Oaks
Laurel Oaks
Lugano
Pointe I
Pointe I
Pointe II
Renaissance
San Marino
San Marino
San Marino
San Marino
Serendipity
Serendipity
Serendipity
Serendipity
Serendipity
Serendipity
St Lucia's Gardens
St Simone
Type
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Houses
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
L
Low
Ri
Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Location
NE
SW
BC
SE
NE
N
N
N
NE
N
NW
NW
NW
SW
SW
SW
SW
NE
NE
SW
SW
N
N
N
SE
SE
SW
N
N
N
SW
NW
NW
NW
NW
S
S
S
S
S
S
SW
S
Buildings
13
1
12
16
23
10
7
1
22
27
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
8
12
12
1
14
7
3
14
4
1
11
5
11
1
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
Doors per
Building
1
2
1
1
1
8
12
10
4
8
8
10
4
4
8
12
16
4
4
8
8
4
12
16
8
12
12
2
4
4
8
10
12
8
14
6
4
8
3
5
10
8
12
Total
Units with doors
13
1
2
1
12
1
16
1
23
1
80
2
84
2
10
2
88
2
216
2
16
2
10
2
16
2
4
2
8
2
12
2
16
2
32
2
48
2
96
2
8
2
56
2
84
2
48
2
112
2
48
2
12
2
22
2
20
2
44
2
8
2
30
2
36
2
8
2
14
2
24
2
8
2
16
2
3
2
5
2
10
2
16
2
36
2
Floor
1
2
1
1
1
4
6
5
2
4
4
5
2
2
4
6
8
2
2
4
4
2
6
8
4
6
4
1
2
2
8
5
6
4
7
3
2
4
2
3
5
4
6
Utility
ONT-E888RTN
Assuming up
to 8 ports
used per
Closets
10
14
2
22
27
2
2
4
1
1
2
2
8
12
12
1
14
7
6
14
8
2
11
5
11
1
6
6
1
2
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
6
4
Aurora ONT Details
Total
MDU
Ports
Strande
d Ports
80
112
16
176
216
16
16
32
8
8
16
16
64
96
96
8
112
56
48
112
64
16
88
40
88
8
48
48
8
16
32
16
16
8
8
16
16
48
0
28
6
88
0
0
6
16
4
0
4
0
32
48
0
0
56
-28
0
0
16
4
66
20
44
0
18
12
0
2
8
8
0
5
3
6
0
12
Notes
ONT-E1321X-RTN
13
2
12
16
23
Prelim Survey
Appendix 3
Number of
Association by name
St Thomas
St Thomas
St. Vincents Villas
Valencia
Willow Brook
Chateaumere
Crescent
Hyde Park
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Lugano
Mansion La Palma
Pebble Creek
Pebble Creek
P bbl C
Pebble
Creek
k
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
Valencia
Valencia
Bay Villas
Bay Villas
Beauville
Beauville
Bridge Way Villas
Bridge Way Villas
Carlton Place
Carlton Place
Chanteclair
Coco Bay
Grand Bay
Interlachen
Interlachen
Isle Verde
Isle Verde
Las Brisas
Las Brisas
Sanctuary
Sand Pointe
St Andrews
St Raphael's Villas
Type
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Low Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Ri
Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Mid Rise
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Location
SW
SW
SW
SW
SE
NW
NW
SW
NE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
BC
NW
NW
NW
SW
SW
SW
SW
S
S
NE
NE
S
S
NW
NW
SW
NW
NW
SW
SW
NE
NE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
NW
Buildings
2
1
2
3
14
3
2
4
4
3
2
1
1
4
1
12
3
2
4
1
3
2
24
23
13
10
20
20
12
8
19
33
33
4
4
18
9
10
10
22
21
15
2
Doors per
Building
12
8
12
8
8
25
15
20
17
30
18
16
20
15
27
12
28
18
15
12
25
18
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
7
Total
Units with doors
24
2
8
2
24
2
24
2
112
2
75
5
30
3
80
5
68
3
90
5
36
4
16
4
20
4
60
3
27
7
144
3
84
5
36
3
60
3
12
3
75
5
36
3
24
1
46
1
26
1
10
1
20
1
40
1
12
1
16
1
19
1
33
1
33
1
8
1
12
1
18
1
18
1
20
1
30
1
22
1
21
1
15
1
14
1
Floor
6
4
6
4
4
5
5
4
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
6
6
5
4
5
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
7
5
Utility
ONT-E888RTN
Assuming up
to 8 ports
used per
Closets
4
1
4
3
14
2
12
1
4
2
12
1
12
2
12
1
6
1
2
2
3
1
8
2
4
1
24
1
12
1
6
1
8
1
2
2
12
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
2
Aurora ONT Details
Total
MDU
Ports
32
8
32
24
112
96
32
96
96
96
48
16
24
64
32
192
96
48
64
16
96
48
Strande
d Ports
8
0
8
0
0
21
2
16
28
6
12
0
4
4
5
48
12
12
4
4
21
12
Notes
ONT-E1321X-RTN
24
46
26
10
20
40
12
16
19
33
33
8
32
20
18
18
20
80
50
22
21
15
16
2
Prelim Survey
Appendix 3
Number of
Association by name
Tierra Mar
Tierra Mar
Villa Coronado
Villa Coronado
Villa La Palma
Villa Lantana
Villa Lantana
Villas atPB West
Villas of Pelican Bay
Villas of Pelican Bay
Vizcaya
Total
Type
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Villas
Location
S
S
NW
NW
BC
NE
NE
SE
SE
SE
BC
Buildings
23
3
3
1
22
18
3
4
6
3
58
1359
Doors per
Total
Building Units with doors
2
46
1
1
3
1
4
12
1
2
2
1
1
22
1
1
18
1
2
6
1
1
4
1
6
36
1
4
12
1
1
58
1
3415 6441
754
Utility
ONT-E888RTN
Assuming up
to 8 ports
used per
Floor
Closets
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
6
1
6
4
1
3
1
1
504 Total
816
TOTAL ONTS
TOTAL PON PORTS
Assuming 8 port PIM
TOTAL 8802 PIMS
TOTAL T7 CHASSIS
1,952
122
Total 1x16 passives
122
6
Aurora ONT Details
Total
MDU
Ports
Strande
d Ports
24
12
Notes
ONT-E1321X-RTN
46
3
2
22
18
6
4
48
24
12
12
58
1136
6,528
1,223
15
1
Prelim Survey
Appendix 3
Access Electronics Quote
Sheet:
All Sheets
Customer:
Spectrum Engineering
Budgetary Pricing
1
2
1
18
122
4
1
1136
1136
816
1136
816
16
1
122
1
16
16
6528
1
61
Model Number
Description
Trident7 OLT Components
Trident 7 OLT 14 RU Chassis with power/alarm panel and fan assembly. Requires the
T7-7218
Platform Management Module (PMM) and Platform Switch Module (PSM)
Trident 7 Multi-Gigabit L2/L3 Platform Switch Module (PSM) supporting three 10GE &
T7-PSM-02
two 1GE uplink interfaces for T7-7218 chassis (note: 1 or 2 /chassis; SFP transceiver
T7-PMM-01
Trident 7 Platform Management Module (1 per T7-7218 chassis)
Trident 7 802.3AH EPON Platform Interface Module (PIM) with Eight PON ports (Note:
T7-PIM-8802
EPON SFP transceivers sold separately)
EPON SFP transceiver, IEEE 802.3, 1000BASE-PX20-D used with the T7-PIM-4802 &
T7-PIM-SFP-PX20-D
T7-PIM-8802.
1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver, transmitting at 1550 nm, for 80 km of single mode fiber
SFP-ZX-RT
applications over an operating temperature range of -40 to 65 C.
RF Settop Return
1 RU RF Set Top Box (STB) digital Return Headend unit. Utilized with ONTs with
embedded support of Motorola STB RF return. Connects to network via 10/100 BASET
LMSR-02
port and performs D/A recovering RF STB signal of Motorola Digital Set Top and
DOCSIS Set Top Gateway (DSG) supporting up to 6 RF STB channels.
Trident7 ONT Components
Outdoor EPON ONT module with One 1000BaseT, Three 10/100BaseT, Two POTS
ONT-E1321X-RTN-FRU and One RF Port with RF Return, PX20 optics, SC/APC connector, Field Replaceable
Unit for the Enhanced NID (ENID) enclosure (sold separately).
ENID-CH
T7 Enhanced NID (ENID) enclosure
Outdoor EPON ONT module with Eight 10/100BASE-T, Eight POTS and Eight RF Ports
ONT-E888X-RTN
with RF Return, SC/APC connector and installed in outdoor enclosure.
Trident7 ONT Battery Backed Power Supply Options
PT-CY-CS24U12V
12VDC Power supply and 7.2AHr Battery, 24W, Indoor (CS24U12V)
PT-CY-CS50U48V
-48VDC Power supply and 20AHr Battery, 50W, Indoor (CS50U48V) Use with ONTVideo Accessories **Estimate Only**
Erbuim Doped Fiber Amplifier 8 Port (ea.)
Patch Panels & cords (1 lot)
Wave Division Multiplexer per port (ea.)
CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch **Estimate Only**
Chassis with control cards, switch fabric, and power supplies (ea.)
Card (Primary) CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch 30M-50M per ch (ea.)
Card (Backup) CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch 30M-50M per ch (ea.)
MoCA Adapters **Estimate Only**
ActionTec MoCA
Estimate Only** 2 Pak ActionTec MoCA adapters
Trident7 Element Management System
Trident7 Element Management System Software Platform supporting up to 3000
T7-EMS-3k
Optical Network Terminals.
Passives
Dual wavelength, 2x16-Way Splitter, Ruggedized with 2 mm pigtail and SC/APC input
OP91S32S-EQ-R2-AS
connectors.
Price
$5,250
$5,250
$9,275
$18,550
$3,010
$3,010
$7,000
$126,000
$210
$25,620
$427
$1,708
$7,875
$7,875
$239
$271,504
$36
$40,896
$40 896
$850
$693,600
$52
$147
$59,072
$119,952
$5,500
$3,928
$35
$88,000
$3,928
$4,270
$11,750
$5,600
$3,750
$11,750
$89,600
$60,000
$100
$652,800
$5,000
$5,000
$815
Grand Total
7
Grand
Total
Quantity
Discount
$49,715
$2,338,100
Access Electronics
Appendix 3
Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Cost Estimate
Core Switch Route
2
2
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16303
16321
10918
10917
16322
41011
41231
41631
41521
60021
60020
41311
41312
10124
10121
10052
Extreme Networks
BD 8900
Summit X480-24x
Summit X480 Core License
Summit X480 DC PSU
Summit X480 AC PSU
Summit X480 MPLS Feature Pack
BD 8810
BD8900-MSM128
BD 8900-10G8X-xl
BD 8900-G48X-xl
BD 1200W -48V DC PSU
BD 700W/1200W AC PSU
BD 8800 Core License
BD8800 MPLS Feature Pack
ER XFP
SR XFP
LX mini-GBIC
5,273.00
1,756.00
349.00
262.00
2,196.00
3,075.00
10,987.00
10,987.00
8,789.00
2,196.00
1,756.00
4,393.00
4,393.00
3,954.00
877.00
437.00
5,589.38
1,861.36
369.94
277.72
2,327.76
3,259.50
11,646.22
11,646.22
9,316.34
2,327.76
1,861.36
4,656.58
4,656.58
4,191.24
929.62
463.22
Core Material Total
1 83011
1 83521
Ridgeline EMS
Ridgeline 3.0 Base-50
Service Advisor FP
24,386.36
2,196.00
7,031.00
2,327.76
7,452.86
EMS Software Total
2 CORE_Install
1 CEC_T&T
11,178.76
3,722.72
0.00
1,110.88
4,655.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,718.48
0.00
Services
Installation of Extreme Summit X480
2,295.00
Turn-up and Test of Extreme Summit x480 Core 29,996.00
2,327.76
7,452.86
9 780 62
9,780.62
2,432.70
31,795.76
4,865.40
31,795.76
Core Services Total
36,661.16
Core Material Total
Shipping & Handling
Services
Total
$34,166.98
TBD
$36,661.16
$70,828.14
8
Core Switch Route
Appendix 3
Core Switch Route
Extreme Networks
Maintenance
2 97004-X480-24X EW NBD AHR Summit X480-24X
2 97000-X480COREEW Software and TAC Summit X480CORE
ExtremeWorks 4 Hour Advanced Hardware
Replacement annual maintenance - 24x7x365
0 97007-8810
TAC, e-Support, 4 hour advanced hardware
replacement
ExtremeWorks 4 Hour On-Site annual
0 97008-MSM128 maintenance - 24x7x365 TAC, e-Support, 4
Hour Response with Engineer and Parts
0 97000-88XOS
ExtremeWorks Software and TAC
1 97003-R-BASE EW Software Subscription-R-Base
EW Software Subscription-R-SA
1 97003-R-SA
0 97000-41312
BD8800 MPLS Feature Pack
Maintenance Total
9
911.00
294.00
965.66
311.64
1,931.32
623.28
3,400.00
3,400.00
0.00
2,615.00
3,400.00
0.00
1,401.00
929.00
2,984.00
467.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
0.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
0.00
6,800.00
Core Switch Route
Appendix 3
items/description
part no
HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server
HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server
Base
583914-B21
Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670 (2.93GHz, 12M
L3 Cache, 95 Watts, DDR3-1333, HT, Turbo 2/2/3/3)
HP 12GB PC3-10600R 3x4GB 2Rank
Memory
Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670 (2.93GHz, 12M
L3 Cache, 95 Watts, DDR3-1333, HT, Turbo 2/2/3/3)
HP 12GB PC3-10600R 3x4GB 2Rank
Memory
VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus with 1yr
HP P410/ZM SAS Array Controller
587493-L21
ext price
2
$
19,655.18
587493-B21
500658-12G
571774-B21
Included
507125-B21
HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual
Port 10,000 rpm Enterprise Hard Drive
507125-B21
HP Slim 12.7mm SATA DVD Optical
Drive
(2) Embedded HP NC382i Dual Port
Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapters
HP NC364T PCI Express Quad Port
Gigabit Server Adapter - Low Profile
HP SCO8e 6 Gb SAS Host Bus Adapter
2 HP 460W CS HE Power Supplies
HP iLO Advanced 1 Server License with
1yr 24x7 Technical Support and Updates
481041-B21
HP Care Pack, Install HP ProLiant DL380
9,827.59
qty
500658-12G
HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual
Port 10,000 rpm Enterprise Hard Drive
Integrated Lights Out 3 (iLO 3) Management
HP Standard Limited Warranty - 3 Years Parts and onsite Labor, Next Business Day
HP Care Pack, 3 Years, 4 Hours, 24x7, Hardware,
ProLiant DL380
unit price
Included
435508-B21
614988-B21
503296-2PS
512485-B21
included
included
U4545E
703.20
2
$
1,406.40
U4554E
280.00
2
$
560.00
7,480.00
1
$
7,480.00
HP StorageWorks P2000 G3 SAS MSA Dual Controller Base
SFF Array System AW594A
HP StorageWorks P2000 G3 SAS MSA Dual Controller
SFF Array System
AW594A
6 Gb/sec SAS host interface
2.5 in. (drive)
2U (enclosure)
Up to 24 SAS / SATA SFF drives
Up to 12TB of storage
Expand w/ D2700 2.5-inch disk enclosure or P2000 3.5inch disk enclosure
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
10
Core Servers
Appendix 3
items/description
part no
512547-B21
HP 146GB 6G SAS 15K rpm SFF (2.5- inch) Dual Port
Enterprise 3yr Warranty Hard Drive
HP 146GB 6G SAS 15K rpm SFF (2.5- inch) Dual Port
Enterprise 3yr Warranty
Hard Drive
HP External Mini SAS 2m Cable
407339-B21
HP 3 year 4 hour 24x7 MSA2000 G3
UV394E
Hardware Support
HP Installation Modular Smart Array and
U8132E
Enclosure Services
HP Modular Smart Array SC08e 2-ports
614988-B21
Ext PCIe x8 SAS Host Bus Adapter
VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus 1P 1yr
571774-B21
9x5 No Media License
UR656E
HP 3 year 24x7 VMWare vSphere EPlus
1 Processor License Support
571780-B21
VMware vCenter Standard for vSphere
1yr No Media License
UR782E
HP 3 year 24x7 VMWare vCenter
Standard for vSphere License Support
SolarWinds Management Software
1247 ORION NPM SL100 SVR LIC W/ 1YR MNT NON Returnable
unit price
qty
ext price
335.07
10
$
3,350.70
88.80
2
$
177.60
1,599.20
1
$
1,599.20
400.00
1
$
400.00
152.57
2
$
305.14
3,087.00
2
$
6,174.00
1,384.00
4
$
5,536.00
4,412.12
1
$
4,412.12
1,978.40
1
$
1,978.40
2,475.00
1
$
2,475.00
Total : $
55,509.74
SubTotal : $55,509.74
* For detailed warranty information, please go to www.hp.com/go/specificwarrantyinfo.
Sales taxes added where applicable. Freight is FOB Destination.
11
Core Servers
Appendix 3
eServices
www.oldcastlecomm.com
27 Amlajack Blvd • Newnan, GA 30265
Phone
Fax
(678) 371-8315
(317) 569-9909
Douglas.domas@oldcastleprecast.com
June 25, 2012
Pelican Bay Foundation Budgetary Cost Estimate
Quote #:
12-0000
Dear Spectrum Engineering
We are pleased to provide you with a proposal for the turnkey deployment of a 12’ X 20’ at your site in Auburn, IN.
With over twenty years of experience in providing controlled environment structures, Oldcastle will exceed your
expectations and offer you the highest standard of quality, service and professional integrity. We offer the
following:
Project Scope:
Please refer to the attached scope of work. Although our proposal is complete, at this time it does not include
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Land purchase cost
Building enhancements
Racks, electronic equipment and related installation
Project contingency
Project Schedule:
We offer the following milestone schedule






Site investigation
Permit review and approval
Equipment procurement
Site preparation
Set building and assembly
Final connections and punch
© 2012 fgh
1 week
???
12 to 15 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
2 weeks
12
Head End
Appendix 3
E
Quote 12-0000
Project Pricing:
Our price in accordance to the above-mentioned scope and schedule is as follows:
Work Item
1. Project Management
2. Real Estate Services
3. Design and Permitting
Allowance
4. Site Work
5. On-site Foundations
6. Delivery, Crane and Assembly
7. Precast Structure
Freight
Use Tax
8. On-site Architectural Enhancements
9. On-site Mechanical and Electrical
A.
Electrical (exterior):
B.
Electrical (interior):
C.
HVAC:
E.
Plumbing:
D.
Fire Protection:
F.
Controls and automation:
10. On-Site Accessories
11. Equipment (60kW Gen & 16kVA UPS)
11. Equipment (UPS & Twistlocks)
12. Electronic Equipment Integration
13. Maintenance
14. Project Contingency
TOTAL
Value
11,576
15,950
7,000
22,432
9,252
37,297
5,350
2,611
10,828
in above
in above
18,886
44,668
30,344
1,000
-
Alternates
-
-
-
-
217,194
We are confident that we have assembled a team that can deliver the necessary performance criteria and
construction activities required to make this a successful project. With our proven track record, Oldcastle will
complete this project meeting your needs as related to schedule, quality and function. Thank you for the
opportunity and do not hesitate to call with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Marc Price
Oldcastle Services
Enclosures: Scope of Work, Terms and Conditions
© 2012 fgh
13
Head End
Appendix 3
E
Quote 12-0000
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Project Management






Project Management:
On-Site Supervision:
Expenses:
Bonds / Insurance:
Testing:
Safety and Quality
Manage the budget, schedule and quality on the shelter project
Manage field activities, coordination of trades and quality assurance
Travel, temporary utilities, layout, trash removal, final cleaning and project photos
Standard certificate naming Owner as additional insured.
Not included as part of this proposal
Our comprehensive corporate programs will be followed on this project
Clarifications:
 Bond premiums reimburse at cost by Owner
 Builder Risk insurance by Owner.
 Design and Permitting by Owner
 Site security by others
 Temporary enclosures and access roads by others
 Delays beyond our control may require additional funds
2. Real Estate Services





Identification/Evaluation:
Due diligence:
Contract negotiation:
Representation at closing:
Real Estate Commissions:
3. Design and Permitting
4. Site Work






Landscaping:
Fencing:
Gate:
Utilities:
Compound stone:
Asphalt paving:
Incoming Electrical, Gas, water and sewer to be provided by others if required
5. On-site Foundations


Grading:
Building foundation:







Generator pad:
Other pads / foundations:
Stoops
Sidewalks:
Compound stone:
Drive and parking:
Culvert
© 2012 fgh
Sheet grade immediate perimeter around building and haul off vegetation debris.
2' wide strip of footing, up to 1' above grade and as required below grade for
frost. Necessary backfill under building with cap slab.
(1) one 10’x15’ slab
(1) one 5’x5’ stoop
Provide 4” of stone cover within 10’ perimeter of building
14
Head End
Appendix 3
E
Quote 12-0000
Exclusions:
 Import or removal of spoil materials
 Soil stabilization
 Dewatering or rock removal
 Wet or winter weather conditions
 Demolition of large vegetation or man-made structures
 Storm drainage via pipes or manholes including foundation drains
 Termite protection
 Excessive footing depth, poor soil bearing capacity, elevated buildings,
sloping sites or provisions for future expansion
 Stairs or handicap ramps
 Satellite or tower foundations
 Pipe bollards
6. Delivery, Crane and Assembly



Freight:
Crane:
Assembly:
Included in section seven
Crane and rigging materials to set building
Labor and materials to set and tie down shelter
Clarifications:
 Delivery on weekdays during normal daylight working hours
 Excessive site access is excluded. This may include but not be limited to the
following: truck and crane turning radius, roads, crossings, or load bearing
surfaces, overhead power lines, overhanging trees, road/lane closures or
other obstructions.
7. Precast Structure
Not included as part of this proposal – Separate quote from Plant
8. On-site Architectural Enhancements


Exterior
Interior
9. On-site Mechanical and Electrical
A. Electrical (exterior):
o Exterior ground:
o
o
o
o
Perimeter loop with copper cable, 10’ copper cladded rods, inspections
ports,conduit entry into building with all connection cadwelded
to 10’ copper cladded rod connected to the main ground loop.
Lightning protection Perimeter copper cable adhered to roof; lightning arrestors adhered to roof
every 15 to 20 on center and connected to cable; two aluminum down legs on
opposite sides of the building with each down leg cadwelded to 10’ copper
cladded rod connected to the main ground loop.
Incoming service
Generator work
Receive, set and anchor; up to 20 lf of conduits (line voltage, blocker heater
and controls) and matching number of conductors for 40KW generator.
Power Conditioning
B. Electrical (interior):
Included as part of section seven
C. Plumbing:
© 2012 fgh
15
Head End
Appendix 3
E
Quote 12-0000
D. Fire Protection:
E. HVAC:
F. Controls and automation:
Exclusions:
 Grounding of fencing
 Supplemental (chemical/compound) materials for grounding
 Metering cabinet, transformer work, transformer pads/poles, right-of-way
work, and boring or excavation of drive or street
 Concrete encasement of any underground conduits
 Interior grounding system
 Wet sprinkler system
 Air Sampling system
 Active alarm or monitoring system
10. On-Site Accessories


Satellite work:
Tower work:
11. Equipment

Generator:



Generator extras:
ATS:
Power Conditioning:
Furnish Katolight 40 KW three phase, (120/240) diesel generator; main line
circuit breaker; 24 hour belly fuel tank; Communications package for remote
monitoring; analog / digital control panel; start-up and training
Furnish 200A, ATS, plant to install
Exclusions:
 Sound attenuation for generator
 Maintenance by-pass for ATS or UPS
12. Electronic Equipment Integration




Cable ladder:
Racks:
o Racks
o Rack accessories
o Power strips
Equipment integration:
Interior Ground
13. Maintenance

Maintenance / Upgrades:
14. Project Contingency
We have not included a project contingency.
© 2012 fgh
16
Head End
Appendix 3
E
Quote 12-0000
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Approved Drawings
1. Preliminary Drawings: Preliminary drawings will be furnished within two weeks from receipt of an acceptable
executed copy of this quotation contract and a Purchase Order
2. Customer Approved Drawings: Customer must sign and return approved drawings.
3. State Approved Drawings: Oldcastle will submit for state approvals immediately after receipt of Customer
Approved Drawings. Please note that Oldcastle has no control over time lines for state approvals. In the
past 12 months, the average time for state approvals has been 4 weeks. The delivery date will be dependent
on current production demands after State approval and will be estimated at time of receipt of Purchase
Order.
4. Change Orders: Any change after Customer Approved Drawings will be considered a change order and will
jeopardize the delivery date of the structure and be subject to additional charges.
Conditions of Sale
1. This proposal is offered for acceptance and shall be valid for sixty (60) days from the date of quote.
2. Oldcastle will review customer’s credit and reserves the right to require special payment terms or reject
Purchase Orders due to poor credit history.
3. Executed orders are not subject to cancellation by buyer except by written agreement with the seller.
4. The information contained herein is proprietary and strictly confidential
5. This Scope of Work and Pricing supersedes all prior proffers, both written and verbal.
Inspection and Acceptance
1. All precast structures must be inspected and signed for by the customer at delivery for visible signs of
damage to the structure and/or items inside the structure.
2. All applicable state and local inspections of the precast structure and/or approvals by third parties must take
place at delivery. Otherwise, the structure will be considered to be acceptable at delivery.
3. All service work must be inspected and accepted immediately upon completion
Warranty
1. Oldcastle provides a limited warranty (available on request) which can be summarized as follows:
a. Ten (10) year structural precast concrete limited warranty
b. One (1) year limited warranty for quality and workmanship of any services performed by Oldcastle
c. One (1) year limited warranty for equipment manufactured and/or installed by Oldcastle
d. Warranties on equipment (HVAC, electrical and lighting devices, etc.) not manufactured by Oldcastle
will be passed through Oldcastle from the manufacturer to the customer
2. All other warranties, express or implied, with respect to the shelter, including without limitation, warranties of
merchantability and fitness or suitability for a particular purpose are hereby disclaimed.
Payment
1. Oldcastle requires progress payments for work completed or stored each month.
2. All invoices shall be submitted on the 25th of each month, projected through the end of the month. Payment is
due within 30 days. All sums not paid when due shall be subject to a 1.5% per month interest charge on past
due balances.
3. If the structure still has not shipped 30 days after the scheduled ship date, storage charges of $10.00 per day
per section will be assessed. Additional maintenance charges may also be incurred at time of delivery.
4. If payment is not made on a timely basis, Oldcastle reserves a security interest in the precast structure as well
as the right to take repossession and title to the structure if payment is not forthcoming.
5. Payment due Oldcastle shall not be dependent upon payment from any other party except where it can be
shown that funds were withheld due to the workmanship of Oldcastle.
6. No retainage shall be deducted from payment.
7. Any applicable Federal, State or Local Taxes is included.
© 2012 fgh
17
Head End
Appendix 3
Pelican Bay Foundation Mainline Construction Cost Estimate
Mainline
BM2 (5/8)(8)
BM2 (5/8)(20)S
BM2A
BM2C
CFO002
CFO012
CFO012E
CFO024
CFO048
CFO144
CFO288
CO144 (6M)
CO288 (6M)
HAPO [97-864] (D)
(N)PE1-3G
PF3-3(A)
PM2A
PM4
PM4A(36")
PM11
PM12(3)
R3-5
(W)HAPO
(W)HBFO
(W)HO1
Expected
Project
Labor (L)
Unit
Totals
Quantities
30
3
-
$41.10
$45.00
$20.55
$64.23
$0.75
$0.86
$0.66
$0.30
$0.79
$0.36
$0.47
$0.81
$0.81
$220.29
$74.20
$97.11
$24.73
$59 36
$59.36
$74.20
$17.19
$98.93
$1.30
$188.82
$157.36
$51.66
Materials
(M)
$21.77
$41.03
$9.84
$19.45
$0.67
$0.41
$0.14
$0.03
$2.24
$0.03
$0.03
$1.78
$2.65
$538.00
$34.83
$21.86
$13.70
$59 91
$59.91
$114.25
$5.07
$32.76
$0.00
$1.00
L&M
Price
$62.87
$86.03
$30.39
$83.68
$1.42
$1.27
$0.80
$0.33
$3.03
$0.39
$0.50
$2.59
$3.46
$758.29
$109.03
$118.97
$38.43
$119 27
$119.27
$188.45
$22.26
$131.69
$1.30
$188.82
$157.36
$52.66
Owner
Extended
Supplied
PricePrice
Revised Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.30
$0.30
$0.51
$1.05
$1.88
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
18
Labor
$1,233.00
$135.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Material
$653.10
$123.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Owner
Construction
Suppliied
Total
Total
$1,886.10
$258.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,144.19
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Extended PriceBuild Project
$1,886.10
$258.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,144.19
Main Line
Appendix 3
Revised
Project
Totals
Mainline Underground
BDO5
BM53T
BM60(6)D
BM60(6)DP
BM60(4)D
BM60(4)DP
BM71
BM72
BM73
BM82
Maxcell 4" 3 Cell with locatable pull tape
(2) 1x16 splitter cassette
HBFO [97-864] (D)
UM-TB(30)
MICROTRENCH
UD(0-1.25)(1-0.75)LW
UD(1-1.25)LW
UD(1-1.25)(2-.075)LW
UD(2-1.25)(2-0.75)LW
UD(2-1.25)LW
UD(3-1.25)LW
UD(4-1.25)LW
UHF (12WX18Lx18H)
UHF (24W
(24Wx36Lx24H)T
36L 24H)T (Ti
(Tier 22)
UHF (30WX48LX24H) (Tier 22)
UHF (30WX48LX24H)T (Tier 22)
UHF (48WX48LX36H)T (Tier 22)
UO002
UO004
UO006
UO008
UO012
UO024
UO048
UO072
UO096
UO144
UO216
UO288
UO432
LCP(576)
Locate Wire (LW)
220
30
40
30
-
17,969
26,954
44,923
89,845
670
30
3
51,303
75,372
33,166
19,807
31,801
29,963
15,386
9,469
25,822
5,092
63,180
3
180,576
-
-
-
Labor (L)
$171.38
$41.10
$46.56
$31.68
$46.56
$25.13
$46.29
$22.00
$22.00
$23.14
$0.90
$35.00
$260.00
$9,894.87
$0.00
$8.25
$8.25
$9.00
$9.75
$9.00
$10.00
$11.00
$171.38
$505
$505.78
78
$343.50
$343.50
$429.37
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$1,345.96
$0.00
Materials (M)
$94.13
$63.13
$48.21
$8.58
$17.95
$5.31
$1.95
$3.96
$25.61
$3.45
$610.00
$565.76
$7,281.44
$0.00
$0.21
$0.29
$0.69
$0.94
$0.56
$0.83
$1.68
$38.65
$500.40
$500 40
$320.52
$335.28
$948.59
$0.49
$0.31
$0.43
$0.58
$0.72
$1.06
$1.71
$2.19
$2.35
$12,944.00
$0.00
Price
$265.51
$104.23
$94.77
$40.26
$64.51
$30.44
$46.29
$23.95
$25.96
$48.75
$4.35
$645.00
$825.76
$17,176.31
$16.00
$8.46
$8.54
$9.69
$10.69
$9.56
$10.83
$12.68
$210.03
$1,006.18
$1 006 18
$664.02
$678.78
$1,377.96
$1.38
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$0.89
$1.20
$1.32
$1.47
$1.61
$1.95
$2.60
$3.08
$3.24
$14,289.96
$0.20
Owner
Supplied
Price
Extended PriceRevised
Project
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
19
$37,703.60
$1,233.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,400.00
$7,800.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148,244.25
$222,370.50
$404,307.00
$875,988.75
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$114,824.60
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$10,305.00
$1,288.11
$0.00
$45,659.67
$67,081.08
$29,517.74
$17,628.23
$28,302.89
$26,667.07
$13,693.54
$8,427.41
$22,981.58
$4,531.88
$56,230.20
$0.00
$4,037.88
$0.00
$20,708.60
$1,893.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$24,400.00
$16,972.80
$0.00
$0.00
$3,773.49
$7,816.66
$30,996.87
$84,454.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,895.50
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$10,058.40
$2,845.76
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$9,699.31
$12,914.05
$8,939.27
$6,808.21
$27,293.85
$8,712.41
$138,301.02
$0.00
$38,832.00
$0.00
$58,412.20
$3,126.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,800.00
$24,772.80
$0.00
$0.00
$152,017.74
$230,187.16
$435,303.87
$960,443.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$140,720.10
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$20,363.40
$4,133.87
$0.00
$45,659.67
$67,081.08
$29,517.74
$17,628.23
$38,002.20
$39,581.12
$22,632.81
$15,235.62
$50,275.43
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$58,412.20
$3,126.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,800.00
$24,772.80
$0.00
$0.00
$152,017.74
$230,187.16
$435,303.87
$960,443.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$140,720.10
$0.00
$0 00
$0.00
$20,363.40
$4,133.87
$0.00
$45,659.67
$67,081.08
$29,517.74
$17,628.23
$38,002.20
$39,581.12
$22,632.81
$15,235.62
$50,275.43
$194,531.22
$0.00
$42,869.88
$36,115.20
$2,517,014.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$194,531.22
$0.00
$42,869.88
$36,115.20
$2,595,999.09
Main Line
Appendix 3
Revised
Project
Totals
Mainline UG - Best Method
UD(1-1.25)LW
UD(1-1.25)(2-.075)LW
UD(2-1.25)(2-0.75)LW
-
(
)
HO1 (1-12)
HO1 (13-48)
7840
RIBBON
$0.23
$0.23
Materials (M)
$1.98
$2.78
Price
Owner
Supplied
Price
Project
$0.62
$0.93
Owner
Supplied
Price
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$1.00
$25.00
$32.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-
$160.00
$0.00
$2.00
$0.00
$162.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$0.00
$0.00
Labor (L)
$157.36
$518.97
$21.29
1 $32,000.00
Materials (M)
Price
$157.36
$249.96
$768.93
$1.00
$22.29
$34,800.00 $66,800.00
Owner
Supplied
Price
$490.00
$9,581.38
$0.00
$1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Project
$24.00
$31.30
1
Labor (L)
Price
-
Revised
Project
Totals
Mainline - Headend
WMSB(24)
BM21
HO1 (1-12)
NGF Frames and Terminations
$1.75
$2.55
Revised
Project
Totals
Mainline - Splicing
Labor (L)
,
$188,160.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
,
$7,840.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
,
$196,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
,
$196,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$196,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$196,000.00
Project
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$66,801.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$32,000.00
Labor
$2,371,751.98
20
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$34,800.00
Material
$524,732.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$66,800.00
$66,800.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$66,801.00
$66,801.00
$2,781,958.20
$0.00
$2,860,944.28
GRAND TOTAL
$2,860,944.28
Main Line
Appendix 3
2GB Internet
(all inclusive)
2012 Internet Pricing Analysis
(Pricing historically remains level or decreases over time)
Internet Cost Model
10GigE capacity, 2 GigE utilized - Wholesale:
Level 3 Full GigE
POP DCC Hotel X-Connect = $325
POP to Miami 10GE (linear) = $6,536.50 (approx 139 mi.)
Miami DCC Hotel Access Tran MRC = $1,915
Cabinet Colo Full Rack
DC Power to Cabinet Colo
Hurricane Electric Gig E DIA (Full 1,000Mbs Port) - 3 Year
DCC Hotel X-Connect = $325
--------------------------------------------
PB
$3,500.00
$325.00
$6,536.50
$1,915.00
$650.00
$350.00
$900.00
$325.00
$14,501.50
Total Internet Cost (Monthly Recurring Charge)
$14,501.50 MRC
* Pricing based on Chicago NAP. Pricing at most NAPs similar.
21
Internet
Appendix 3
Quote
Date:
May 22, 2012
Quote #:
Expiration Date:
Tab:
Project:
To:
Summary
Peilican Bay
Salesperson
Sales Engineer
Scott Heidel
Luis Mantilla
pp g
Method
pp g
Terms
Delivery Date
Payment Terms
NET 30
Site
Site Total
Pelican Bay POP
$
6,363.00
NAP of the Americas, Miami
$
6,363.00
Spares
$
4,340.25
Total $
22
17,066.25
Transport
Appendix 3
Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows
FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Premium Dataa
Customers
Estimated Operating Receipts
Member Services Fee
Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet)
Commercial Member Services Fee
Total Estimated Operating Receipts
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60
Base
Dec-13
0
Jan-14
1
Feb-14
2
Mar-14
3
Pro Forma
May-14
5
Apr-14
4
Jun-14
6
Jul-14
7
Aug-14
8
Sep-14
9
Pro Forma
Oct-14
10
Nov-14
11
Dec-14
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Residential Customers
Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
-
Total
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Residential Data Subs
Business - C&I
650
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
650
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Estimated Operating Disbursements
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Overhead & Benefits (42%)
Benefits Other
Professional Services
Legal / Attorney Fees
Engineering / Consulting
Contractural Services
Rentals and Leases
Transportation Reimburse
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Maintenance and Repair
Fiber Maint and Repair
Electronics Maint and Repair
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Supplies and Materials
Operating Supplies
Fuels
Fuels for Vehicles/Equip
Total Est. Operating Disbursements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Net Operating Sub total
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jan-15
13
Pro Forma
Mar-15
15
Feb-15
14
-
-
-
200
-
1,800
-
3,400
-
5,000
-
200
200
1,800
3,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,502
14,502
300
300
14,802
14,502
14,502
301
301
14,803
2,420
1,000
1,000
420
14,502
14,502
302
302
1,417
1,417
18,641
2,427
1,003
1,003
421
16,502
2,000
14,502
303
303
1,421
1,421
20,653
(14,802)
(14,803)
(18,641)
(20,653)
23
Apr-15
16
May-15
17
663,000
663,000
663,000
Jun-15
18
Jul-15
19
663,000
663,000
663,000
Pro Forma
Aug-15
20
Sep-15
21
-
-
Oct-15
22
-
-
663,000
663,000
663,000
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
5,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,434
1,006
1,006
422
16,502
2,000
14,502
304
304
1,425
1,425
20,665
2,441
1,008
1,009
424
32,502
18,000
14,502
305
305
5,500
2,500
3,000
1,429
1,429
42,177
2,448
1,011
1,012
425
48,502
34,000
14,502
306
306
5,515
2,507
3,008
1,433
1,433
58,204
2,455
1,014
1,015
426
64,502
50,000
14,502
307
307
5,530
2,514
3,016
1,437
1,437
74,231
2,461
1,016
1,018
427
79,502
65,000
14,502
308
308
5,545
2,521
3,024
1,441
1,441
89,257
2,468
1,019
1,021
428
79,502
65,000
14,502
309
309
5,560
2,528
3,032
1,445
1,445
89,284
2,475
1,022
1,024
429
79,502
65,000
14,502
310
310
5,575
2,535
3,040
1,449
1,449
89,311
2,482
1,025
1,027
430
79,502
65,000
14,502
311
311
5,590
2,542
3,048
1,453
1,453
89,338
2,488
1,027
1,030
431
79,502
65,000
14,502
312
312
5,605
2,549
3,056
1,457
1,457
89,364
2,496
1,030
1,033
433
79,502
65,000
14,502
313
313
5,620
2,556
3,064
1,461
1,461
89,392
2,503
1,033
1,036
434
79,502
65,000
14,502
314
314
5,635
2,563
3,072
1,465
1,465
89,419
(20,665)
(42,177)
(58,204)
(74,231)
573,743
(89,284)
(89,311)
573,662
(89,364)
(89,392)
573,581
Monthly Financials - Loan
Appendix 3
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts
Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments:
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Capital Expenditures
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements
Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total
Accumulated Capital Investment
Base
Dec-13
0
Jan-14
1
Feb-14
2
Mar-14
3
Pro Forma
May-14
5
Apr-14
4
412,800
412,800
-
412,800
372,800
40,000
412,800
-
412,800
Jun-14
6
Jul-14
7
Aug-14
8
Pro Forma
Oct-14
10
Sep-14
9
Nov-14
11
Dec-14
12
Jan-15
13
Pro Forma
Mar-15
15
Feb-15
14
Apr-15
16
May-15
17
Jun-15
18
Pro Forma
Aug-15
20
Jul-15
19
Sep-15
21
Oct-15
22
-
-
-
-
7,700,000
7,700,000
-
-
-
-
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
685,247
57,831
76,451
249,013
248,151
53,802
685,247
651,251
76,451
249,013
248,151
23,835
53,802
651,251
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
574,801
249,013
248,151
23,835
53,802
574,801
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
714,084
249,013
248,151
163,119
53,802
714,084
465,071
248,151
163,119
53,802
465,071
16,347
16,347
16,347
-
-
-
-
7,107,551
(592,390)
(592,395)
(685,198)
(651,207)
(737,882)
(737,888)
(574,776)
(737,900)
(714,070)
(465,064)
(16,344)
(103,521)
(103,523)
(103,525)
(87,174)
(87,175)
(87,177)
1,005,249
1,597,698
2,190,147
2,875,394
3,526,645
4,264,565
5,002,485
5,577,286
6,315,206
7,029,290
7,494,361
7,510,708
7,527,055
7,543,402
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
412,800
412,800
412,800
412,800
59
59
54
54
49
49
44
44
38
38
32
32
25
25
20
20
14
14
7
7
3
3
8
8
6
6
4
4
8
8
7
7
5
5
87,182
48,682
38,500
16,347
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
16,347
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
16,347
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
16,347
103,529
16,347
103,529
16,347
103,529
87,182
87,182
87,182
Estimated Net Working Cash Flow
Beginning Working Cash Balance
Ending Working Cash Balance
-
-
-
-
-
7,101,774
7 101 774
7,101,774
(601,572)
7,101,774
6 500 202
6,500,202
(604,982)
6,500,202
5 895 219
5,895,219
(716,525)
5,895,219
5 178 694
5,178,694
(686,278)
5,178,694
4 492 416
4,492,416
(781,032)
4,492,416
3 711 384
3,711,384
(787,291)
3,711,384
2 924 093
2,924,093
(627,494)
2,924,093
2 296 599
2,296,599
(816,372)
2,296,599
1 480 228
1,480,228
(812,672)
1,480,228
667 555
667,555
(582,366)
667,555
85 190
85,190
514,234
85,190
599 423
599,423
(236,064)
599,423
363 359
363,359
(236,187)
363,359
127 172
127,172
426,691
127,172
553 863
553,863
(219,985)
553,863
333 878
333,878
(220,014)
333,878
113 864
113,864
442,957
113,864
556 821
556,821
Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer)
Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated)
-
-
-
-
-
5,777
5,777
9,182
14,959
12,587
27,547
16,525
44,072
20,268
64,340
24,509
88,849
28,750
117,599
32,053
149,652
36,294
185,946
40,398
226,345
43,071
269,416
43,165
312,581
43,259
355,840
43,353
399,192
43,447
442,639
43,447
486,086
43,447
529,533
43,447
572,980
Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated)
-
-
-
-
-
7,107,551
6,515,161
5,922,766
5,222,766
4,556,756
3,800,233
3,041,692
2,446,251
1,666,174
893,900
354,605
912,004
719,199
526,365
996,502
819,964
643,397
1,129,801
24
Appendix 3
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012
Nov-15
23
Dec-15
24
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
Total
6,500
Business - C&I
Total
Premium Dataa
Customers
Member Services Fee
Pro Forma
Feb-16
26
Jan-16
25
663,000
663,000
663,000
Mar-16
27
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
2,510
1,036
1,039
435
79,502
65,000
14,502
315
315
5,650
2,570
3,080
1,469
1,469
89,446
(89,446)
Apr-16
28
May-16
29
663,000
663,000
663,000
Jun-16
30
Jul-16
31
Pro Forma
Aug-16
32
Sep-16
33
-
-
Oct-16
34
Nov-16
35
Dec-16
36
-
-
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,516
1,038
1,042
436
79,502
65,000
14,502
316
316
5,665
2,577
3,088
1,473
1,473
89,472
2,523
1,041
1,045
437
79,502
65,000
14,502
317
317
5,680
2,584
3,096
1,477
1,477
89,499
2,530
1,044
1,048
438
79,502
65,000
14,502
318
318
5,695
2,591
3,104
1,481
1,481
89,526
2,538
1,047
1,051
440
79,502
65,000
14,502
319
319
5,710
2,598
3,112
1,485
1,485
89,554
2,544
1,049
1,054
441
79,502
65,000
14,502
320
320
5,725
2,605
3,120
1,489
1,489
89,580
2,551
1,052
1,057
442
79,502
65,000
14,502
321
321
5,740
2,612
3,128
1,493
1,493
89,607
2,558
1,055
1,060
443
79,502
65,000
14,502
322
322
5,755
2,619
3,136
1,497
1,497
89,634
2,565
1,058
1,063
444
79,502
65,000
14,502
323
323
5,770
2,626
3,144
1,501
1,501
89,661
2,572
1,061
1,066
445
79,502
65,000
14,502
324
324
5,785
2,633
3,152
1,505
1,505
89,688
(89,472)
573,501
(89,526)
(89,554)
573,420
(89,607)
(89,634)
573,339
(89,688)
663,000
663,000
663,000
25
663,000
663,000
663,000
Pro Forma
Feb-17
38
Jan-17
37
663,000
663,000
663,000
Mar-17
39
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,580
1,064
1,069
447
79,502
65,000
14,502
325
325
5,800
2,640
3,160
1,509
1,509
89,716
2,586
1,066
1,072
448
79,502
65,000
14,502
326
326
5,815
2,647
3,168
1,513
1,513
89,742
2,593
1,069
1,075
449
79,502
65,000
14,502
327
327
5,830
2,654
3,176
1,517
1,517
89,769
(89,716)
573,258
(89,769)
Apr-17
40
May-17
41
702,780
702,780
702,780
Jun-17
42
Jul-17
43
702,780
702,780
702,780
Pro Forma
Aug-17
44
Sep-17
45
-
-
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,600
1,072
1,078
450
79,502
65,000
14,502
328
328
5,845
2,661
3,184
1,521
1,521
89,796
2,607
1,075
1,081
451
79,675
65,173
14,502
329
329
5,860
2,668
3,192
1,525
1,525
89,996
2,615
1,078
1,084
453
79,849
65,347
14,502
330
330
5,876
2,675
3,201
1,529
1,529
90,199
2,622
1,081
1,087
454
80,023
65,521
14,502
331
331
5,892
2,682
3,210
1,533
1,533
90,401
2,629
1,084
1,090
455
80,198
65,696
14,502
332
332
5,908
2,689
3,219
1,537
1,537
90,604
2,635
1,086
1,093
456
80,373
65,871
14,502
333
333
5,924
2,696
3,228
1,541
1,541
90,806
2,643
1,089
1,096
458
80,549
66,047
14,502
334
334
5,940
2,703
3,237
1,545
1,545
91,011
2,650
1,092
1,099
459
80,725
66,223
14,502
335
335
5,956
2,710
3,246
1,549
1,549
91,215
2,657
1,095
1,102
460
80,902
66,400
14,502
336
336
5,972
2,717
3,255
1,553
1,553
91,420
2,664
1,098
1,105
461
81,079
66,577
14,502
337
337
5,988
2,724
3,264
1,557
1,557
91,625
(89,796)
573,004
(90,199)
(90,401)
612,176
(90,806)
(91,011)
611,565
(91,420)
(91,625)
Appendix 3
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Dec-15
24
Nov-15
23
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Pro Forma
Feb-16
26
Jan-16
25
Mar-16
27
Apr-16
28
May-16
29
Jun-16
30
Pro Forma
Aug-16
32
Jul-16
31
Sep-16
33
Oct-16
34
Nov-16
35
Dec-16
36
Pro Forma
Feb-17
38
Jan-17
37
Mar-17
39
Apr-17
40
May-17
41
Jun-17
42
Pro Forma
Aug-17
44
Jul-17
43
Sep-17
45
9
9
8
8
6
6
11
11
9
9
8
8
12
12
10
10
9
9
13
13
11
11
10
10
14
14
12
12
11
11
15
15
13
13
12
12
16
16
15
15
13
13
18
18
16
16
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
48,682
38,500
-
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
51,603
35,579
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
(87,173)
(87,174)
(87,176)
(87,171)
(87,173)
(87,174)
(87,170)
(87,172)
(87,173)
(87,169)
(87,171)
(87,172)
(87,168)
(87,170)
(87,171)
(87,167)
(87,169)
(87,170)
(87,166)
(87,167)
(87,169)
(87,164)
(87,166)
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
(220,065)
556,821
336 756
336,756
(220,093)
336,756
116 663
116,663
442,878
116,663
559 541
559,541
(220,144)
559,541
339 397
339,397
(220,173)
339,397
119 223
119,223
442,799
119,223
562 022
562,022
(220,224)
562,022
341 798
341,798
(220,253)
341,798
121 545
121,545
442,719
121,545
564 264
564,264
(220,304)
564,264
343 961
343,961
(220,333)
343,961
123 628
123,628
442,639
123,628
566 266
566,266
(220,384)
566,266
345 882
345,882
(220,413)
345,882
125 469
125,469
442,386
125,469
567 856
567,856
(220,813)
567,856
347 043
347,043
(221,016)
347,043
126 027
126,027
481,560
126,027
607 586
607,586
(221,419)
607,586
386 167
386,167
(221,625)
386,167
164 542
164,542
480,949
164,542
645 491
645,491
(222,031)
645,491
423 460
423,460
(222,238)
423,460
201 222
201,222
43,447
616,427
43,447
659,873
43,447
703,320
43,447
746,767
43,447
790,214
43,447
833,661
43,447
877,108
43,447
920,554
43,447
964,001
43,447
1,007,448
43,447
1,050,895
43,447
1,094,342
43,447
1,137,789
43,447
1,181,235
43,447
1,224,682
43,447
1,268,129
43,447
1,311,576
43,447
1,355,023
43,447
1,398,470
43,447
1,441,916
43,447
1,485,363
43,447
1,528,810
43,447
1,572,257
953,182
776,536
1,262,861
1,086,164
909,437
1,395,683
1,218,906
1,042,100
1,528,266
1,351,409
1,174,523
1,660,608
1,483,671
1,306,705
1,792,538
1,615,172
1,437,603
1,962,609
1,784,637
1,606,458
2,130,854
1,952,270
1,773,479
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
26
Appendix 3
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Oct-17
46
Premium Dataa
Customers
Member Services Fee
702,780
702,780
702,780
Nov-17
47
Dec-17
48
-
-
Pro Forma
Feb-18
50
Jan-18
49
702,780
702,780
702,780
Mar-18
51
-
-
Apr-18
52
May-18
53
702,780
702,780
702,780
Jun-18
54
Jul-18
55
-
-
702,780
702,780
702,780
Pro Forma
Aug-18
56
Sep-18
57
-
-
Oct-18
58
702,780
702,780
702,780
Nov-18
59
Dec-18
60
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
Total
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
Business - C&I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,671
1,101
1,108
462
81,257
66,755
14,502
338
338
6,004
2,731
3,273
1,561
1,561
91,831
2,679
1,104
1,111
464
81,435
66,933
14,502
339
339
6,020
2,738
3,282
1,565
1,565
92,038
2,686
1,107
1,114
465
81,613
67,111
14,502
340
340
6,036
2,745
3,291
1,569
1,569
92,244
2,693
1,110
1,117
466
81,792
67,290
14,502
341
341
6,052
2,752
3,300
1,573
1,573
92,451
2,700
1,113
1,120
467
81,971
67,469
14,502
342
342
6,068
2,759
3,309
1,577
1,577
92,658
2,708
1,116
1,123
469
82,151
67,649
14,502
343
343
6,084
2,766
3,318
1,581
1,581
92,867
2,715
1,119
1,126
470
82,331
67,829
14,502
344
344
6,100
2,773
3,327
1,585
1,585
93,075
2,722
1,122
1,129
471
82,512
68,010
14,502
345
345
6,116
2,780
3,336
1,589
1,589
93,284
2,729
1,125
1,132
472
82,693
68,191
14,502
346
346
6,132
2,787
3,345
1,593
1,593
93,493
2,737
1,128
1,135
474
82,875
68,373
14,502
347
347
6,148
2,794
3,354
1,597
1,597
93,704
2,744
1,131
1,138
475
83,057
68,555
14,502
348
348
6,164
2,801
3,363
1,601
1,601
93,914
2,751
1,134
1,141
476
83,240
68,738
14,502
349
349
6,180
2,808
3,372
1,605
1,605
94,125
2,758
1,137
1,144
477
83,423
68,921
14,502
350
350
6,196
2,815
3,381
1,609
1,609
94,336
2,766
1,140
1,147
479
83,607
69,105
14,502
351
351
6,213
2,823
3,390
1,613
1,613
94,550
2,773
1,143
1,150
480
83,791
69,289
14,502
352
352
6,230
2,831
3,399
1,617
1,617
94,763
610,949
(92,038)
(92,244)
610,329
(92,658)
(92,867)
609,705
(93,284)
(93,493)
609,076
(93,914)
(94,125)
608,444
(94,550)
(94,763)
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
27
Appendix 3
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Nov-17
47
Oct-17
46
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Dec-17
48
Pro Forma
Feb-18
50
Jan-18
49
Mar-18
51
Apr-18
52
May-18
53
Jun-18
54
Pro Forma
Aug-18
56
Jul-18
55
Sep-18
57
Oct-18
58
Nov-18
59
Dec-18
60
15
15
19
19
18
18
16
16
21
21
19
19
18
18
22
22
20
20
19
19
23
23
22
22
20
20
25
25
23
23
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
54,699
32,483
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
87,182
57,981
29,201
87,182
(87,167)
(87,163)
(87,164)
(87,166)
(87,161)
(87,163)
(87,164)
(87,160)
(87,162)
(87,163)
(87,159)
(87,160)
(87,162)
(87,157)
(87,159)
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
480,335
201,222
681 557
681,557
(222,648)
681,557
458 909
458,909
(222,855)
458,909
236 055
236,055
479,716
236,055
715 771
715,771
(223,266)
715,771
492 505
492,505
(223,477)
492,505
269 029
269,029
479,094
269,029
748 123
748,123
(223,891)
748,123
524 233
524,233
(224,102)
524,233
300 131
300,131
478,466
300,131
778 598
778,598
(224,520)
778,598
554 078
554,078
(224,732)
554,078
329 347
329,347
477,835
329,347
807 182
807,182
(225,154)
807,182
582 028
582,028
(225,369)
582,028
356 660
356,660
43,447
1,615,704
43,447
1,659,151
43,447
1,702,597
43,447
1,746,044
43,447
1,789,491
43,447
1,832,938
43,447
1,876,385
43,447
1,919,832
43,447
1,963,278
43,447
2,006,725
43,447
2,050,172
43,447
2,093,619
43,447
2,137,066
43,447
2,180,513
43,447
2,223,959
2,297,261
2,118,060
1,938,652
2,461,815
2,281,997
2,101,967
2,624,508
2,444,064
2,263,410
2,785,323
2,604,250
2,422,966
2,944,248
2,762,541
2,580,619
28
Appendix 3
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
Pro-Forma Annual Cash Flows
Broadband Services
Other Data Service
Collocation
Member Services Fee
Avg
Avg
Base
2012-2013
0
2014
1
2015
2
-
-
-
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
T
Transportation
t ti R
Reimburse
i b
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
2016
3
Pro Forma
2018
5
2017
4
2019
6
2020
7
2021
8
2022
9
Pro Forma
2023
10
2024
11
2025
12
2026
13
2027
14
Pro Forma
2028
15
1,989,000
1,989,000
1,989,000
2,652,000
2,652,000
2,652,000
2,771,340
2,771,340
2,771,340
2,811,120
2,811,120
2,811,120
2,937,620
2,937,620
2,937,620
2,979,787
2,979,787
2,979,787
3,113,878
3,113,878
3,113,878
3,158,574
3,158,574
3,158,574
3,300,710
3,300,710
3,300,710
3,348,089
3,348,089
3,498,753
3,498,753
3,548,974
3,548,974
3,708,678
3,708,678
3,761,913
3,761,913
3,348,089
3,498,753
3,548,974
3,708,678
3,761,913
33
33
5,725
5,725
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
7,281
3,009
3,009
1,263
76,510
4,000
72,510
1,510
1,510
4,263
4,263
89,564
29,743
12,279
12,306
5,158
861,024
687,000
174,024
3,726
3,726
84,402
30,462
36,528
17,412
978,895
30,740
12,678
12,738
5,324
954,024
780,000
174,024
3,870
3,870
87,138
31,470
37,680
17,988
1,075,772
31,758
13,090
13,170
5,498
967,678
793,654
174,024
4,014
4,014
89,940
32,478
38,898
18,564
1,093,390
32,793
13,515
13,602
5,676
993,443
819,419
174,024
4,158
4,158
92,823
33,489
40,194
19,140
1,123,217
33,849
13,954
14,034
5,861
1,020,047
846,023
174,024
4,302
4,302
95,802
34,596
41,490
19,716
1,154,000
34,925
14,407
14,466
6,052
1,047,515
873,491
174,024
4,446
4,446
98,862
35,748
42,801
20,313
1,185,748
36,020
14,875
14,898
6,247
1,075,872
901,848
174,024
4,590
4,590
102,138
36,900
44,220
21,018
1,218,620
37,139
15,358
15,330
6,451
1,105,159
931,135
174,024
4,734
4,734
105,456
38,058
45,660
21,738
1,252,488
38,293
15,856
15,777
6,660
1,135,399
961,375
174,024
4,878
4,878
108,886
39,318
47,110
22,458
1,287,456
39,519
16,364
16,282
6,873
1,171,732
992,139
179,593
5,034
5,034
112,370
40,576
48,618
23,177
1,328,655
40,783
16,888
16,803
7,093
1,209,227
1,023,887
185,340
5,195
5,195
115,966
41,875
50,173
23,918
1,371,172
42,089
17,428
17,341
7,320
1,247,922
1,056,652
191,271
5,361
5,361
119,677
43,215
51,779
24,684
1,415,050
43,435
17,986
17,895
7,554
1,287,856
1,090,465
197,391
5,533
5,533
123,507
44,597
53,436
25,474
1,460,331
44,825
18,561
18,468
7,796
1,329,067
1,125,360
203,708
5,710
5,710
127,459
46,025
55,146
26,289
1,507,062
-
(89,564)
1,010,105
1,576,228
1,677,950
1,687,903
1,783,620
1,794,039
1,895,258
1,906,086
2,013,254
2,019,434
2,127,581
2,133,924
2,248,347
2,254,851
29
Annual Financials - Loan
Appendix 3
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
Base
2012-2013
0
2014
1
412,800
412,800
412,800
372,800
40,000
412,800
-
412,800
2015
2
2016
3
Pro Forma
2018
5
2017
4
2019
6
2020
7
2021
8
Pro Forma
2023
10
2022
9
2024
11
2025
12
2026
13
7,700,000
301
7,700,301
99
99
125
125
181
181
248
248
315
315
390
390
470
470
558
558
647
647
668
668
689
689
5,164,486
231,323
152,902
1,992,106
1,985,205
326,238
95,341
381,371
5,164,486
697 456
697,456
389,456
308,000
1,982,463
498,027
744,452
489,357
23,835
226,792
2,679,919
11,046,183
046 183
607,551
438,633
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
644,004
402,180
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
682,644
363,539
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
723,602
322,581
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
767,019
279,165
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
813,040
233,144
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
861,822
184,361
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
913,531
132,652
1,046,183
11,046,183
046 183
968,343
77,840
1,046,183
2,535,815
(2,679,820)
(1,046,058)
(1,046,002)
(1,045,935)
(1,045,868)
(1,045,793)
(1,045,713)
(1,045,625)
(1,045,536)
5,577,286
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
Pro Forma
2028
15
2027
14
711
711
734
734
757
757
348 728
348,728
328,988
19,739
348,728
-
-
-
(1,045,515)
(348,039)
711
734
757
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
-
2,296,599
2,296,599
(2,179,936)
2,296,599
116,663
8,808
116,663
125,471
110,586
125,471
236,057
120,606
236,057
356,663
216,390
356,663
573,053
226,884
573,053
799,937
328,183
799,937
1,128,120
339,099
1,128,120
1,467,219
446,356
1,467,219
1,913,575
452,557
1,913,575
2,366,132
1,258,180
2,366,132
3,624,312
1,613,273
3,624,312
5,237,585
1,727,719
5,237,585
6,965,304
1,734,246
6,965,304
8,699,550
-
149,652
149,652
510,221
659,873
521,362
1,181,235
521,362
1,702,597
521,362
2,223,959
521,362
2,745,321
521,362
3,266,683
521,362
3,788,045
521,362
4,309,407
521,362
4,830,769
521,362
5,352,131
521,362
5,873,493
521,362
6,394,855
521,362
6,916,217
521,362
7,437,579
-
2,446,251
776,536
1,306,706
1,938,654
2,580,622
3,318,374
4,066,620
4,916,165
5,776,626
6,744,344
7,718,263
9,497,805
11,632,440
13,881,521
16,137,129
1.81
1.82
1.92
1.93
6.10
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
1.45
1.51
1.60
1.61
30
1.70
1.71
Annual Financials - Loan
Appendix 3
Simple
Amortization Schedule
Principal
Term
APR
Principal (1)
Fiscal
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Total
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
7,700,000
7,700,000
7,115,817
6,496,582
5,840,194
5,144,422
4,406,905
3,625,136
2,796,460
1,918,065
986,965
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
584,183
619,234
656,388
695,772
737,518
781,769
828,675
878,396
931,099
986,965
7,700,000
Interest (1)
462,000
426,949
389,795
350,412
308,665
264,414
217,508
167,788
115,084
59,218
2,761,833
7,700,000
10 year
6.00%
Monthly
Principal
Monthly
Interest
48,681.94
51,602.86
54,699.03
57,980.97
61,459.83
65,147.42
69,056.26
73,199.64
77,591.62
82,247.11
641,667
38,500.00
35,579.08
32,482.91
29,200.97
25,722.11
22,034.52
18,125.68
13,982.30
9,590.32
4,934.83
230,153
31
Total
Monthly
Debt
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
87,182
871,819
Total Debt
Service
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
1,046,183
10,461,833
Loan Sched
Appendix 3
Projected 2015 Dollars
Comcast
Setup Charge
Hold Charge
(inactive months)
Internet
Bulk TV
$ 41.54
$
$
$
$
$
$
Loan
$
6.39
52.13
35.00
84.99
94.99
99.99
$
$
$
Premier TV Plus 10%
$
Premier HD TV Plus 20%
$
20%
$
System Management
$
Operational Expenses
$ $
Reserve
$
Debt Service
$ $
Addnl Monthly Spend
$ 47.50 $
Average Monthly Spend ###### $
2.23
22.50
19.95
29.95
35.95
10.00
1.50
6.68
13.41
15.18
71.50
TV only Resident
$
Quarterly
$102.00
$2,520,960
Pelican Bay Yearly
Savings (Loss)
Annual Cost Comparison Comcast
Full Time Resident Internet and Bulk TV
6 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV
Service on Hold (6
renews service each
renews service each
renews service each
Member Fee
Monthly
34.00
Member
Composition
Aggregate
Annual
Savings
$ 1,046
$
676
$
370
30%
$ 720,820
$
771
$
676
$
95
10%
$
61,877
$
774
$
676
$
98
10%
$
63,953
$
618
$
676
$
(58)
25%
$ (94,265)
$
514
$
676
$
(162)
15%
$ (158,218)
$
420
$
676
$
(256)
10%
$ (166,363)
Yearly aggregate savings
32
$ 427,804
Member Benefit - Loan
Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash
Monthly Cash Flow – Cash Model
Annual Cash Flow – Cash Model
Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Cash Model
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Premium Dataa
Customers
Member Services Fee
Base
Dec-13
0
Jan-14
1
Feb-14
2
Mar-14
3
Pro Forma
May-14
5
Apr-14
4
Jun-14
6
Jul-14
7
Aug-14
8
Sep-14
9
Pro Forma
Oct-14
10
Nov-14
11
Dec-14
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
-
Total
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Business - C&I
650
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
650
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jan-15
13
Pro Forma
Mar-15
15
Feb-15
14
-
-
-
200
-
1,800
-
3,400
-
5,000
-
200
200
1,800
3,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,502
14,502
300
300
14,802
14,502
14,502
301
301
14,803
2,420
1,000
1,000
420
14,502
14,502
302
302
1,417
1,417
18,641
2,427
1,003
1,003
421
16,502
2,000
14,502
303
303
1,421
1,421
20,653
(14,802)
(14,803)
(18,641)
(20,653)
1
Apr-15
16
May-15
17
409,500
409,500
409,500
Jun-15
18
Jul-15
19
409,500
409,500
409,500
Pro Forma
Aug-15
20
Sep-15
21
-
-
Oct-15
22
-
-
409,500
409,500
409,500
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
5,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,434
1,006
1,006
422
16,502
2,000
14,502
304
304
1,425
1,425
20,665
2,441
1,008
1,009
424
32,502
18,000
14,502
305
305
5,500
2,500
3,000
1,429
1,429
42,177
2,448
1,011
1,012
425
48,502
34,000
14,502
306
306
5,515
2,507
3,008
1,433
1,433
58,204
2,455
1,014
1,015
426
64,502
50,000
14,502
307
307
5,530
2,514
3,016
1,437
1,437
74,231
2,461
1,016
1,018
427
79,502
65,000
14,502
308
308
5,545
2,521
3,024
1,441
1,441
89,257
2,468
1,019
1,021
428
79,502
65,000
14,502
309
309
5,560
2,528
3,032
1,445
1,445
89,284
2,475
1,022
1,024
429
79,502
65,000
14,502
310
310
5,575
2,535
3,040
1,449
1,449
89,311
2,482
1,025
1,027
430
79,502
65,000
14,502
311
311
5,590
2,542
3,048
1,453
1,453
89,338
2,488
1,027
1,030
431
79,502
65,000
14,502
312
312
5,605
2,549
3,056
1,457
1,457
89,364
2,496
1,030
1,033
433
79,502
65,000
14,502
313
313
5,620
2,556
3,064
1,461
1,461
89,392
2,503
1,033
1,036
434
79,502
65,000
14,502
314
314
5,635
2,563
3,072
1,465
1,465
89,419
(20,665)
(42,177)
(58,204)
(74,231)
320,243
(89,284)
(89,311)
320,162
(89,364)
(89,392)
320,081
Monthly Financials - Cash
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
Base
Dec-13
0
Jan-14
1
Feb-14
2
Mar-14
3
Pro Forma
May-14
5
Apr-14
4
412,800
412,800
-
412,800
372,800
40,000
412,800
-
412,800
Jun-14
6
Jul-14
7
Aug-14
8
Pro Forma
Oct-14
10
Sep-14
9
Nov-14
11
Dec-14
12
Jan-15
13
Pro Forma
Mar-15
15
Feb-15
14
Apr-15
16
May-15
17
Jun-15
18
Pro Forma
Aug-15
20
Jul-15
19
Sep-15
21
Oct-15
22
-
-
-
-
7,700,000
7,700,000
-
-
-
-
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
592,449
57,831
249,013
248,151
37,455
592,449
685,247
57,831
76,451
249,013
248,151
53,802
685,247
651,251
76,451
249,013
248,151
23,835
53,802
651,251
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
574,801
249,013
248,151
23,835
53,802
574,801
737,920
249,013
248,151
163,119
23,835
53,802
737,920
714,084
249,013
248,151
163,119
53,802
714,084
465,071
248,151
163,119
53,802
465,071
16,347
16,347
16,347
-
-
-
-
7,107,551
(592,390)
(592,395)
(685,198)
(651,207)
(737,882)
(737,888)
(574,776)
(737,900)
(714,070)
(465,064)
(16,344)
(16,342)
(16,342)
(16,343)
6
6
5
1,005,249
1,597,698
2,190,147
2,875,394
3,526,645
4,264,565
5,002,485
5,577,286
6,315,206
7,029,290
7,494,361
7,510,708
7,527,055
7,543,402
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
412,800
412,800
412,800
412,800
59
59
54
54
49
49
44
44
38
38
32
32
25
25
20
20
14
14
7
7
3
3
5
5
5
5
4
4
16,347
-
16,347
-
16,347
-
-
-
-
16,347
16,347
16,347
16,347
16,347
16,347
-
-
-
6
6
6
6
5
5
-
-
-
-
-
7,101,774
7 101 774
7,101,774
(601,572)
7,101,774
6 500 202
6,500,202
(604,982)
6,500,202
5 895 219
5,895,219
(716,525)
5,895,219
5 178 694
5,178,694
(686,278)
5,178,694
4 492 416
4,492,416
(781,032)
4,492,416
3 711 384
3,711,384
(787,291)
3,711,384
2 924 093
2,924,093
(627,494)
2,924,093
2 296 599
2,296,599
(816,372)
2,296,599
1 480 228
1,480,228
(812,672)
1,480,228
667 555
667,555
(582,366)
667,555
85 190
85,190
260,734
85,190
345 923
345,923
(148,885)
345,923
197 038
197,038
(149,006)
197,038
48 032
48,032
260,373
48,032
308 405
308,405
(132,805)
308,405
175 600
175,600
(132,833)
175,600
42 767
42,767
276,639
42,767
319 406
319,406
-
-
-
-
-
5,777
5,777
9,182
14,959
12,587
27,547
16,525
44,072
20,268
64,340
24,509
88,849
28,750
117,599
32,053
149,652
36,294
185,946
40,398
226,345
43,071
269,416
43,165
312,581
43,259
355,840
43,353
399,192
43,447
442,639
43,447
486,086
43,447
529,533
43,447
572,980
-
-
-
-
-
7,107,551
6,515,161
5,922,766
5,222,766
4,556,756
3,800,233
3,041,692
2,446,251
1,666,174
893,900
354,605
658,504
552,878
447,225
751,044
661,686
572,300
892,386
2
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Nov-15
23
Dec-15
24
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
Total
6,500
Business - C&I
Total
Premium Dataa
Customers
Member Services Fee
Pro Forma
Feb-16
26
Jan-16
25
409,500
409,500
409,500
Mar-16
27
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
2,510
1,036
1,039
435
79,502
65,000
14,502
315
315
5,650
2,570
3,080
1,469
1,469
89,446
(89,446)
Apr-16
28
May-16
29
409,500
409,500
409,500
Jun-16
30
Jul-16
31
Pro Forma
Aug-16
32
Sep-16
33
-
-
Oct-16
34
Nov-16
35
Dec-16
36
-
-
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,516
1,038
1,042
436
79,502
65,000
14,502
316
316
5,665
2,577
3,088
1,473
1,473
89,472
2,523
1,041
1,045
437
79,502
65,000
14,502
317
317
5,680
2,584
3,096
1,477
1,477
89,499
2,530
1,044
1,048
438
79,502
65,000
14,502
318
318
5,695
2,591
3,104
1,481
1,481
89,526
2,538
1,047
1,051
440
79,502
65,000
14,502
319
319
5,710
2,598
3,112
1,485
1,485
89,554
2,544
1,049
1,054
441
79,502
65,000
14,502
320
320
5,725
2,605
3,120
1,489
1,489
89,580
2,551
1,052
1,057
442
79,502
65,000
14,502
321
321
5,740
2,612
3,128
1,493
1,493
89,607
2,558
1,055
1,060
443
79,502
65,000
14,502
322
322
5,755
2,619
3,136
1,497
1,497
89,634
2,565
1,058
1,063
444
79,502
65,000
14,502
323
323
5,770
2,626
3,144
1,501
1,501
89,661
2,572
1,061
1,066
445
79,502
65,000
14,502
324
324
5,785
2,633
3,152
1,505
1,505
89,688
(89,472)
320,001
(89,526)
(89,554)
319,920
(89,607)
(89,634)
319,839
(89,688)
409,500
409,500
409,500
3
409,500
409,500
409,500
Pro Forma
Feb-17
38
Jan-17
37
409,500
409,500
409,500
Mar-17
39
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,580
1,064
1,069
447
79,502
65,000
14,502
325
325
5,800
2,640
3,160
1,509
1,509
89,716
2,586
1,066
1,072
448
79,502
65,000
14,502
326
326
5,815
2,647
3,168
1,513
1,513
89,742
2,593
1,069
1,075
449
79,502
65,000
14,502
327
327
5,830
2,654
3,176
1,517
1,517
89,769
(89,716)
319,758
(89,769)
Apr-17
40
May-17
41
434,070
434,070
434,070
Jun-17
42
Jul-17
43
434,070
434,070
434,070
Pro Forma
Aug-17
44
Sep-17
45
-
-
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,600
1,072
1,078
450
79,502
65,000
14,502
328
328
5,845
2,661
3,184
1,521
1,521
89,796
2,607
1,075
1,081
451
79,675
65,173
14,502
329
329
5,860
2,668
3,192
1,525
1,525
89,996
2,615
1,078
1,084
453
79,849
65,347
14,502
330
330
5,876
2,675
3,201
1,529
1,529
90,199
2,622
1,081
1,087
454
80,023
65,521
14,502
331
331
5,892
2,682
3,210
1,533
1,533
90,401
2,629
1,084
1,090
455
80,198
65,696
14,502
332
332
5,908
2,689
3,219
1,537
1,537
90,604
2,635
1,086
1,093
456
80,373
65,871
14,502
333
333
5,924
2,696
3,228
1,541
1,541
90,806
2,643
1,089
1,096
458
80,549
66,047
14,502
334
334
5,940
2,703
3,237
1,545
1,545
91,011
2,650
1,092
1,099
459
80,725
66,223
14,502
335
335
5,956
2,710
3,246
1,549
1,549
91,215
2,657
1,095
1,102
460
80,902
66,400
14,502
336
336
5,972
2,717
3,255
1,553
1,553
91,420
2,664
1,098
1,105
461
81,079
66,577
14,502
337
337
5,988
2,724
3,264
1,557
1,557
91,625
(89,796)
319,504
(90,199)
(90,401)
343,466
(90,806)
(91,011)
342,855
(91,420)
(91,625)
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Dec-15
24
Nov-15
23
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
7
7
Pro Forma
Feb-16
26
Jan-16
25
7
7
Mar-16
27
6
6
9
9
Apr-16
28
May-16
29
8
8
7
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jun-16
30
10
10
-
Pro Forma
Aug-16
32
Jul-16
31
9
9
-
8
8
-
Sep-16
33
11
11
-
Oct-16
34
Nov-16
35
10
10
-
9
9
-
-
Dec-16
36
12
12
-
Pro Forma
Feb-17
38
Jan-17
37
11
11
-
Mar-17
39
11
11
-
13
13
-
Apr-17
40
May-17
41
13
13
-
12
12
-
Jun-17
42
15
15
-
Pro Forma
Aug-17
44
Jul-17
43
14
14
-
13
13
-
Sep-17
45
16
16
15
15
-
-
7
7
6
9
8
7
10
9
8
11
10
9
12
11
11
13
13
12
15
14
13
16
15
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
(132,885)
319,406
186 521
186,521
(132,912)
186,521
53 609
53,609
276,560
53,609
330 169
330,169
(132,964)
330,169
197 205
197,205
(132,992)
197,205
64 212
64,212
276,480
64,212
340 692
340,692
(133,044)
340,692
207 648
207,648
(133,072)
207,648
74 576
74,576
276,400
74,576
350 976
350,976
(133,124)
350,976
217 853
217,853
(133,152)
217,853
84 701
84,701
276,320
84,701
361 020
361,020
(133,204)
361,020
227 816
227,816
(133,232)
227,816
94 584
94,584
276,068
94,584
370 653
370,653
(133,633)
370,653
237 020
237,020
(133,834)
237,020
103 186
103,186
300,032
103,186
403 217
403,217
(134,238)
403,217
268 979
268,979
(134,444)
268,979
134 535
134,535
299,421
134,535
433 956
433,956
(134,851)
433,956
299 105
299,105
(135,057)
299,105
164 048
164,048
43,447
616,427
43,447
659,873
43,447
703,320
43,447
746,767
43,447
790,214
43,447
833,661
43,447
877,108
43,447
920,554
43,447
964,001
43,447
1,007,448
43,447
1,050,895
43,447
1,094,342
43,447
1,137,789
43,447
1,181,235
43,447
1,224,682
43,447
1,268,129
43,447
1,311,576
43,447
1,355,023
43,447
1,398,470
43,447
1,441,916
43,447
1,485,363
43,447
1,528,810
43,447
1,572,257
802,947
713,482
1,033,489
943,972
854,426
1,174,353
1,084,756
995,131
1,314,978
1,225,301
1,135,596
1,455,362
1,365,605
1,275,820
1,595,335
1,505,149
1,414,762
1,758,240
1,667,449
1,576,451
1,919,319
1,827,915
1,736,305
4
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Oct-17
46
Premium Dataa
Customers
Member Services Fee
434,070
434,070
434,070
Nov-17
47
Dec-17
48
-
-
Pro Forma
Feb-18
50
Jan-18
49
434,070
434,070
434,070
Mar-18
51
-
-
Apr-18
52
May-18
53
434,070
434,070
434,070
Jun-18
54
Jul-18
55
-
-
434,070
434,070
434,070
Pro Forma
Aug-18
56
Sep-18
57
-
-
Oct-18
58
434,070
434,070
434,070
Nov-18
59
Dec-18
60
-
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
6,500
-
Total
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
Business - C&I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,671
1,101
1,108
462
81,257
66,755
14,502
338
338
6,004
2,731
3,273
1,561
1,561
91,831
2,679
1,104
1,111
464
81,435
66,933
14,502
339
339
6,020
2,738
3,282
1,565
1,565
92,038
2,686
1,107
1,114
465
81,613
67,111
14,502
340
340
6,036
2,745
3,291
1,569
1,569
92,244
2,693
1,110
1,117
466
81,792
67,290
14,502
341
341
6,052
2,752
3,300
1,573
1,573
92,451
2,700
1,113
1,120
467
81,971
67,469
14,502
342
342
6,068
2,759
3,309
1,577
1,577
92,658
2,708
1,116
1,123
469
82,151
67,649
14,502
343
343
6,084
2,766
3,318
1,581
1,581
92,867
2,715
1,119
1,126
470
82,331
67,829
14,502
344
344
6,100
2,773
3,327
1,585
1,585
93,075
2,722
1,122
1,129
471
82,512
68,010
14,502
345
345
6,116
2,780
3,336
1,589
1,589
93,284
2,729
1,125
1,132
472
82,693
68,191
14,502
346
346
6,132
2,787
3,345
1,593
1,593
93,493
2,737
1,128
1,135
474
82,875
68,373
14,502
347
347
6,148
2,794
3,354
1,597
1,597
93,704
2,744
1,131
1,138
475
83,057
68,555
14,502
348
348
6,164
2,801
3,363
1,601
1,601
93,914
2,751
1,134
1,141
476
83,240
68,738
14,502
349
349
6,180
2,808
3,372
1,605
1,605
94,125
2,758
1,137
1,144
477
83,423
68,921
14,502
350
350
6,196
2,815
3,381
1,609
1,609
94,336
2,766
1,140
1,147
479
83,607
69,105
14,502
351
351
6,213
2,823
3,390
1,613
1,613
94,550
2,773
1,143
1,150
480
83,791
69,289
14,502
352
352
6,230
2,831
3,399
1,617
1,617
94,763
342,239
(92,038)
(92,244)
341,619
(92,658)
(92,867)
340,995
(93,284)
(93,493)
340,366
(93,914)
(94,125)
339,734
(94,550)
(94,763)
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
5
Appendix 4
VOICE, VIDEO, DATA
Nov-17
47
Oct-17
46
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
14
14
-
Dec-17
48
17
17
-
Pro Forma
Feb-18
50
Jan-18
49
17
17
-
Mar-18
51
16
16
-
19
19
-
Apr-18
52
May-18
53
18
18
-
17
17
-
Jun-18
54
20
20
-
Pro Forma
Aug-18
56
Jul-18
55
19
19
-
18
18
-
Sep-18
57
21
21
-
Oct-18
58
Nov-18
59
20
20
-
20
20
-
Dec-18
60
22
22
-
22
22
-
14
17
17
16
19
18
17
20
19
18
21
20
20
22
22
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
298,806
164,048
462 854
462,854
(135,468)
462,854
327 386
327,386
(135,674)
327,386
191 713
191,713
298,188
191,713
489 901
489,901
(136,086)
489,901
353 815
353,815
(136,296)
353,815
217 520
217,520
297,565
217,520
515 085
515,085
(136,711)
515,085
378 375
378,375
(136,921)
378,375
241 454
241,454
296,937
241,454
538 392
538,392
(137,340)
538,392
401 052
401,052
(137,552)
401,052
263 501
263,501
296,307
263,501
559 808
559,808
(137,975)
559,808
421 833
421,833
(138,188)
421,833
283 646
283,646
43,447
1,615,704
43,447
1,659,151
43,447
1,702,597
43,447
1,746,044
43,447
1,789,491
43,447
1,832,938
43,447
1,876,385
43,447
1,919,832
43,447
1,963,278
43,447
2,006,725
43,447
2,050,172
43,447
2,093,619
43,447
2,137,066
43,447
2,180,513
43,447
2,223,959
2,078,558
1,986,537
1,894,310
2,235,945
2,143,307
2,050,458
2,391,470
2,298,206
2,204,733
2,545,117
2,451,224
2,357,120
2,696,874
2,602,346
2,507,605
6
Appendix 4
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
Broadband Services
Other Data Service
Collocation
Member Services Fee
Avg
Avg
Base
2012-2013
0
2014
1
2015
2
-
-
-
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Training & Travel
Benefits Other
Rentals and Leases
T
Transportation
t ti R
Reimburse
i b
Marketing
Utilities
Utilities
Insurance
Minor Equipment
Minor Equipment
Operating Supplies
Fuels
2016
3
Pro Forma
2018
5
2017
4
2019
6
2020
7
2021
8
2022
9
Pro Forma
2023
10
2024
11
2025
12
2026
13
2027
14
Pro Forma
2028
15
1,228,500
1,228,500
1,228,500
1,638,000
1,638,000
1,638,000
1,711,710
1,711,710
1,711,710
1,736,280
1,736,280
1,736,280
1,814,413
1,814,413
1,814,413
1,840,457
1,840,457
1,840,457
1,923,277
1,923,277
1,923,277
1,950,884
1,950,884
1,950,884
2,038,674
2,038,674
2,038,674
2,067,937
2,067,937
2,160,994
2,160,994
2,192,013
2,192,013
2,290,654
2,290,654
2,323,534
2,323,534
2,067,937
2,160,994
2,192,013
2,290,654
2,323,534
33
33
5,725
5,725
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
-
7,281
3,009
3,009
1,263
76,510
4,000
72,510
1,510
1,510
4,263
4,263
89,564
29,743
12,279
12,306
5,158
861,024
687,000
174,024
3,726
3,726
84,402
30,462
36,528
17,412
978,895
30,740
12,678
12,738
5,324
954,024
780,000
174,024
3,870
3,870
87,138
31,470
37,680
17,988
1,075,772
31,758
13,090
13,170
5,498
967,678
793,654
174,024
4,014
4,014
89,940
32,478
38,898
18,564
1,093,390
32,793
13,515
13,602
5,676
993,443
819,419
174,024
4,158
4,158
92,823
33,489
40,194
19,140
1,123,217
33,849
13,954
14,034
5,861
1,020,047
846,023
174,024
4,302
4,302
95,802
34,596
41,490
19,716
1,154,000
34,925
14,407
14,466
6,052
1,047,515
873,491
174,024
4,446
4,446
98,862
35,748
42,801
20,313
1,185,748
36,020
14,875
14,898
6,247
1,075,872
901,848
174,024
4,590
4,590
102,138
36,900
44,220
21,018
1,218,620
37,139
15,358
15,330
6,451
1,105,159
931,135
174,024
4,734
4,734
105,456
38,058
45,660
21,738
1,252,488
38,293
15,856
15,777
6,660
1,135,399
961,375
174,024
4,878
4,878
108,886
39,318
47,110
22,458
1,287,456
39,519
16,364
16,282
6,873
1,171,732
992,139
179,593
5,034
5,034
112,370
40,576
48,618
23,177
1,328,655
40,783
16,888
16,803
7,093
1,209,227
1,023,887
185,340
5,195
5,195
115,966
41,875
50,173
23,918
1,371,172
42,089
17,428
17,341
7,320
1,247,922
1,056,652
191,271
5,361
5,361
119,677
43,215
51,779
24,684
1,415,050
43,435
17,986
17,895
7,554
1,287,856
1,090,465
197,391
5,533
5,533
123,507
44,597
53,436
25,474
1,460,331
44,825
18,561
18,468
7,796
1,329,067
1,125,360
203,708
5,710
5,710
127,459
46,025
55,146
26,289
1,507,062
-
(89,564)
249,605
562,228
618,320
613,063
660,413
654,709
704,657
698,396
751,218
739,282
789,822
776,963
830,323
816,472
7
Annual Financials - Cash
Appendix 4
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
1.045
1.014
Foundation Prefund
Project Fund - Loan
Interest Income
Debt Service
Principal - Loan
Interest - Loan
Head End
Core
Equipment & Tools
Engineering
Other Costs
Base
2012-2013
0
2014
1
412,800
412,800
412,800
372,800
40,000
412,800
-
412,800
2015
2
2016
3
7,700,000
301
7,700,301
89
89
5,164,486
231,323
152,902
1,992,106
1,985,205
326,238
95,341
381,371
5,164,486
Pro Forma
2018
5
2017
4
2019
6
2020
7
2021
8
Pro Forma
2023
10
2022
9
2024
11
2025
12
2026
13
Pro Forma
2028
15
2027
14
110
110
170
170
232
232
296
296
363
363
430
430
501
501
575
575
593
593
612
612
632
632
652
652
673
673
1,982,463
498,027
744,452
489,357
23,835
226,792
1,982,463
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,535,815
(1,982,374)
110
170
232
296
363
430
501
575
593
612
632
652
673
5,577,286
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
7,559,749
-
2,296,599
2,296,599
(2,242,990)
2,296,599
53,609
40,976
53,609
94,585
97,128
94,585
191,713
91,933
191,713
283,646
139,347
283,646
422,993
133,710
422,993
556,703
183,725
556,703
740,428
177,535
740,428
917,963
230,431
917,963
1,148,394
218,513
1,148,394
1,366,907
269,072
1,366,907
1,635,979
256,233
1,635,979
1,892,212
309,613
1,892,212
2,201,825
295,783
2,201,825
2,497,608
-
149,652
149,652
510,221
659,873
521,362
1,181,235
521,362
1,702,597
521,362
2,223,959
521,362
2,745,321
521,362
3,266,683
521,362
3,788,045
521,362
4,309,407
521,362
4,830,769
521,362
5,352,131
521,362
5,873,493
521,362
6,394,855
521,362
6,916,217
521,362
7,437,579
-
2,446,251
713,482
1,275,820
1,894,310
2,507,605
3,168,314
3,823,386
4,528,473
5,227,370
5,979,163
6,719,038
7,509,472
8,287,067
9,118,042
9,935,187
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
8
Annual Financials - Cash
Appendix 4
Projected 2015 Dollars
Comcast
Setup Charge
Hold Charge
(inactive months)
Internet
Bulk TV
System Management
Operational Expenses
Reserve
Debt Service
Loan
$ 41.54
$
$ 6.39
$ 52.13
$ 35.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ $ 87.13
2.23
22.50
10.00
1.50 Member Fee $
6.68
42.92
Pelican Bay
Yearly
Savings
Annual Cost ComparisonComcast
Full Time Resident Internet and Bulk TV
Service on Hold (6
renews service each
renews service each
renews service each
TV only Resident
Monthly
21.00
Quarterly
$63.00
Member
Composition
Aggregate
Annual
Savings (Loss)
$ 1,046
$
515
$
531
30%
$ 1,034,675
$
771
$
515
$
256
10%
$
166,495
$
774
$
515
$
259
10%
$
168,572
$
618
$
515
$
103
25%
$
167,281
$
514
$
515
$
(1)
15%
$
(1,291)
$
420
$
515
$
(95)
10%
$
(61,745)
Yearly aggregate savings
9
$ 1,473,987
Member Benefit - Cash
Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest
...__ __......
SimplifY Your Life!
DIGITAL TV • INTERNET • TELEPHONE • MEOlA PRODUCTIONS
June 26, 2012
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.,
6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples, FL 34108
Re: Notice of Project Interest -Service Provider
To Pelican Bay Foundation Board:
This letter shall serve as formal notice of interest in the Pelican Bay fiber project.
Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc., a pioneer in the U.S. broadband world, has the skills and
resources necessary to provide a full complement of video and internet content as well as all required
ongoing customer service and technical support. We understand that Pelican Bay desires to provide
high quality, low-cost bulk analog TV and Internet services to its members.
Created in 1997 as a successor to a not-for-profit education initiative called Luminet, Hiawatha
Broadband Communications, Inc., provides cable modem and wireless Internet connections, landline
and wireless voice services, and cable television services to the greater Winona, Minnesota, area, St.
Charles, Wabasha, Lewiston, Rollingstone, and Stockton, Dover, Eyota, Elgin, Plainview, Lake City and
Red Wing, Minnesota. The Wabasha build, completed in the fall of 2005 was among Minnesota's first
fiber-to-the-home projects. All networks with the exception of Winona and St. Charles are FTIH
communities.
More than 40 percent of the stock in HBC is owned by Winona area educational institutions. The stock
was purchased for the community's schools by anonymous benefactors as the new company was
organized to build upon the history of Luminet. Begun in 1992, Luminet utilized a leased fiber-optic
network to connect the community's educational institutions for the purpose of extending the reach of
teaching and learning.
-
ofit corporation, operates in Winona a 130-mile hybrid fiber-coaxial network
during th summer of 2000. The firm employs 106 people.
Website: www.hbci.com
E-Mail: info@hbd.com
58 Johnson Street ·Winona, MN 55987
phone (507) 474·4000 · fax (507) 454·5878
1242 Whitewater Avenue· St. Charles, MN 55972
phone (507) 932·8000 · fax (507) 932·8005
329 Hiawatha Drive East, Suite t ·Wabasha, MN 55981
phone (651) 560·4000 · fax (651) 565·0257
l
Voice: (239) 642-4545
Fax:
(239) 394-4895
www.marcocable.com
www.nuvuweb.com
June 20, 2012
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples, FL 34108
RE:
Multimedia Service Delivery and Fiber Optic Networking
Attention:
Scott Bowles, P.E.
To the Pelican Bay Foundation Board:
Please accept this letter as timely and proper notice of NuVu’s interest in providing services to the Pelican Bay fiber project.
NuVu is the mainland extension of Marco Island Cable and our consolidated business is now providing services to more than
11,000 customers and 150 associations in Collier and Lee counties. This year, Marco Cable / NuVu is activating 5,000 new
subscribers on our 100% fiber to the premises infrastructure. Among our new customers are marquee Naples associations
like the Vineyards, Bridgewater Bay and Countryside Golf and Country Club!
NuVu uses high-capacity, IP-centric fiber optic cable connections to provide fast and steady communication services
principally to condominium properties and planned communities. From hybrid fiber-coax deployments to the latest in fiber
to the unit implementations, NuVu delivers reliable, high bandwidth products that are positioned as the singular, viable cable
television alternative in Collier and Lee County!
With the largest cable subscriber base on Marco Island, the aggressive but managed growth of our mainland business is built
upon nineteen years of delivering cutting edge solutions and a commitment to providing a “boutique quality” customer
service experience. We were the first cable operation in Collier county to deliver digital, high definition and two-way
Internet services and NuVu has led the market with the first fiber to the home solutions delivered by a franchise operator in
southwest Florida. Our history of technology leadership in this market makes NuVu the perfect partner for a progressive
community association like Pelican Bay!
Marco Cable / NuVu has more available analog and unencrypted digital channels than any provider in Southwest Florida.
Our cost effective “in the clear” basic cable offering is coupled with more than 400 digital channels available for upgrade and
an expansion this year to over 100 cable channels in High Definition. NuVu is contractually obligated to open a Naples office
this fall to compliment our existing service center on Marco and our offices in Bonita Springs.
As a local, independent cable company, our commitment to Naples is strong. With NuVu, the money Pelican Bay spends on
its television and communications services will be invested locally. We employ local technicians, local customer service
representatives and NuVu is investing more than $15 Million in fiber optic deployments and infrastructure improvements in
this market over the next eighteen months.
We would welcome an opportunity to participate in the Pelican Bay fiber project.
Sincerely,
Joshua M. Henschell
General Manager
Corporate Office: 914-B Park Ave • Marco Island, FL 34145
Mailing address: P.O. Box 368 • Marco Island, FL 34146
COMMUNICATIONS
S TATE M E NT
OF
Q U A LIFICATIONS
MasTec North America, Inc.
Organizational Structure
Over the course of the last 80 years, MasTec companies have been involved in some of the largest
and most complex infrastructure construction projects across the country. Our experience has given
us a deep and comprehensive understanding of the markets we serve, as well as the ability to effectively manage people, projects and equipment. It allows us to proactively identify challenges, avoid
pitfalls, and overcome obstacles, and to accurately set and meet expectations for schedule and
budget.
With offices across the country, a workforce of nearly 10,000 skilled professionals, and an extensive
wholly owned fleet of specialized construction equipment, MasTec has the resources needed to
reliably deliver quality work for even the most complicated jobs. Our geographic reach, scalability,
and overall financial stability enable us to meet each of our customers changing needs on a daily
basis. Our focus on innovation colors everything we do, and as we've grown, we've fostered it
throughout every level of our organization.
Construct.
Connect.
Evolve.
We're always looking for ways to increase efficiency within the projects we take on, and within our
own organization. We work to stay at the forefront of safety and environmentally responsible
construction, and to increase the application of these concepts throughout each and every client
project. We strive to find better solutions to the world's needs, as well as safer, more socially
conscious ways to meet them both today and in the future. By consistently meeting our clients' high
expectations for safety, quality and service, MasTec delivers the confidence they need to hire us again
and again.
MasTec and our subsidiaries are currently certified as a Minority-Controlled Company by the National
Minority Suppliers Development Council (NMSDC) and as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) by
the California Public Utilities Commission’s Supplier Clearinghouse. These certifications allow MasTec
to be recognized as a minority contractor throughout the United States and across a range of industries that we serve.
MasTec History & Background
In 1969, Church & Tower, an underground utility construction firm, recruited Cuban immigrant Jorge
Mas Canosa to bring discipline, focus and leadership to the company. Hardworking and driven by the
fundamental belief that a person could succeed by capitalizing on opportunities, Mas Canosa saw
Church & Tower playing a vital role in South Florida's economic boom and it's need for reliable utility
infrastructure. Mas Canosa forged a relationship with a regional telephone company by demonstrating Church & Tower's cost-effective and expedient construction techniques. The telephone company
awarded Church & Tower a long-term contract to install and repair underground phone lines throughout greater Miami and Fort Lauderdale. In 1971, Mas Canosa bought Church & Tower. With this
leadership, Church & Tower achieved unprecedented growth. Customers embraced the firm's
innovative methods and began looking to them for service and guidance beyond the company's
traditional geographic reach. The Mas family saw South Florida-based Burnup & Sims as a major
player in many markets, but also as a company struggling to define its culture and vision for the
future. Under Jorge Mas' guidance, the two companies became one. On March 11, 1994, publicly
traded Burnup & Sims acquired Church & Tower.
Jorge Mas became the company's president and his father became the chairman, and the name was
changed to MasTec. By folding our partners under the MasTec name and hiring personnel with
specialized expertise, MasTec broadened its capabilities and geographic reach to be a part of some
of the largest and most complex infrastructure construction across the country. Our extensive experience has given us a deep and comprehensive understanding of the markets we serve – renewable
energy, electric power, gas and oil, water and sewer, communications, and installation-fulfillment
services.
Page 1
The MasTec Energy division was further developed through an aggressive acquisition strategy with a
few key acquisitions that allowed specific market expansion into the VA, TX, and additional Southeastern US markets. These included EL Dalton Construction in 1997 and RD Moody Construction in 1997.
Later MasTec included Summerville Construction and Three Phase Line Constructors to its group of
Energy contractors. Continuing the growth strategy MasTec purchased EC Source in 2011 that
provides Transmission Line development services.
Memberships, Associations & Consortiums
As the MasTec family continues to grow, we have aligned ourselves with a variety of respected industry
associations, and work to benefit from their support. The following organizations are the backbone of
MasTec's pride in our work, and of our commitment to our workers, communities, job sites, and
customers.
Making
communications
work.
Union Representation Statement
MasTec North America, Inc. is a Non Union company.
Core Focus
MasTec North America focuses on the Utility Construction industry including Electric Transmission and
Distribution, Natural Gas Pipeline, and Telecommunications.
Core Ethics & Values Statement
MasTec North America, Inc. is committed to the highest ethical standards and to conducting its
business with the utmost integrity. An unwavering adherence to high ethical standards provides a
strong foundation on which the Company’s business and reputation can thrive, and is integral to creating and sustaining a successful, high-caliber Company. The Company's reputation depends on the
conduct of its directors and employees. Every employee and director must play a part in maintaining
the Company's reputation for the highest ethical standards.
In accordance with applicable law, the Company has adopted a formal “Code of Business Conduct
and Ethics” which is applicable to all employees, directors and anyone else acting on behalf of the
Company. All employees and directors are required to abide by the terms of the Code of Business
Conduct and Ethics.
Continuous Improvement
At MasTec North America, Inc. we refine our business process through not only seeing how a past
project or relationship performed, but constantly looking into the future of the Utility Industry to define
“Best Fit” business practices to keep up with the constantly changing Utility Industry. As our utility
clients continue to transform their business through Smart Grid applications, Safety Reporting Requirements, Changing Customer Base, and Financial Reporting requirements, it is our role to understand
these changes and work to assist our clients obtain their goals.
Minority Enterprise Status
MasTec and our subsidiaries are currently certified as a Minority-Controlled Company by the National
Minority Suppliers Development Council (NMSDC). These certifications allow MasTec to be recognized as a minority contractor throughout the United States and across a range of industries that we
serve. An NMSDC certificate is included in the addendum section of this proposal.
Page 2
Financial Data & Security
Parent Company: MasTec, Inc (MTZ)
Contracting Entity: MasTec North America, Inc
Contact Information: (same for both)
800 S. Douglass Rd, 12th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main (305) 991-1800
Fax (305) 406-1900
Putting your
customers in touch
with tomorrow.
www.mastec.com
Type: Corporation
Bonding Information:
Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company of America
Jack Preston
4631 Woodland Corporate Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33614
(813)-890-4078
Single Bonding Capacity: $100,000,000.00
Aggregate: In Excess of $500,000,000.00
Taxpayer Identification Number: 65-0829357
DUN: 04-223-6278
Page 3
Safety
Safety is an integral part of everything we do, and we believe this benefits our employees, our clients,
and our company as a whole. Our risk-management program is designed to promote training, safety
awareness, accident prevention, and employee retention throughout every level of our organization.
The MasTec commitment to safety is established through extensive employee training and dedication
toward quality improvements throughout each of our industrial specialties. Our training centers in
North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas are operated by experienced safety and training
managers. These centers educate our employees in mandatory outside plant, aerial, and
underground- construction practices and safety procedures that help ensure compliance with OSHA
and DOT safety rules.
We are committed to reinforcing safety and risk management through mandatory training and
skill-level improvement programs, including:
■ Safety orientation for newly hired employees
■ Defensive and DOT seminars for fleet drivers
■ Trench safety classes for outside plant workers
■ Tailgate safety meetings at the onset of each project
Stringent safety
regulations are the
standard at MasTec.
Safety and risk management also assist to positively influence our bottom line, as well as those of our
customers. We strive to manage costs by resolving outstanding issues in a timely manner, quickly
investigating any incidents, regularly reporting financial impact, and immediately correcting any
issues to prevent re-occurrences.
Safety Philosophy
Our safety philosophy allows us to develop and enforce workplace practices that ensure the
safe-work ethic and environment of our employees. It is based upon the following principles:
■ All accidents, incidents, and injuries can be prevented and all workplace hazards can be
safeguarded.
■ Each member of our organization, from management on down, is responsible for preventing
accidents, incidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses and will be held accountable.
■ Training employees to work safely is essential and is the responsibility of management and
supervisors.
■ Occupational safety and health is part of every employee's total job performance.
■ Working safely is a condition of employment.
■ The prevention of personal injuries and accidents is good business.
Safety Associations
■ National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER)
■ National Safety Council
Staff Development, Training and Retention
Field Level Training
MasTec provides our customers with highly skilled crews. In the construction industry, the ability to
provide skilled employees is a direct result of having experienced employees. Almost 40% of our
personnel have been with MasTec for over 5 years. Not only do these employees provide quality
project experience to our customers, they are also an integral part of training our new employees.
Our new employees also participate in new hire orientations upon employment and depending upon
their positions, are required to perform skill tests before they are allowed to operate specialized
equipment.
Page 4
Management Training
MasTec has developed an internal Management Development Program. This program is designed for
employees who are supervisors or employees who have the desire to become supervisors. The
program contains three separate modules of classes with approximately five classes in each module.
The first module is the basis of a general employee development program and provides the foundation
for a career path in construction leadership opportunities. The second module provides employees
with the knowledge and skills required to lead crews and to develop a career path in construction
leadership opportunities. The third module provides employees with the skills and workforce
knowledge required to lead and manage crews and to perform the job functions required of MasTec
management. In 2009, we conducted over 300,000 man hours of training under this program.
Key Elements of our Safety and Health Programs:
Management Commitment
■ A staff of safety professionals manage the company’s safety programs;
■ Monthly meetings are held where executives and managers review safety metrics including
incidents and trends;
■ Quarterly Safety Meetings for management and supervision;
■ Executives and Managers perform documented scheduled and non-scheduled job site
inspections monthly and quarterly;
■ Financial resources for safety and training are committed from the capital budget to eliminate
or control identified risks.
Put the power of our
workforce to work
for you.
Employee Participation
■ Weekly safety meetings to discuss work associated risks, hazards and controls;
■ Employee input is encouraged and solicited in making site specific safety decisions;
Hazard Identification
■ Documented Daily Pre-Job Briefings (PJB) are held to identify the plan for the day and how any
known hazards or risks will be eliminated or controlled to prevent incidents.
■ Supervisory level employees conduct documented safety inspections weekly;
■ Results of inspections and corrective actions for any deficiencies are reviewed and shared
throughout the company.
■ Full time safety professionals available to be assigned to a project as contract or conditions
require.
Incident Management
■ Employees are encouraged/required to report all incidents including near-misses;
■ An incident reporting procedure is established for each project or job site;
■ All incidents are investigated to a level that identifies their root cause and corrective or
preventative actions needed to prevent a recurrence;
■ Lessons learned from incidents are reviewed with all employees, company-wide.
Division Construction Safety Metrics
Description
2008
2009
2010
2011
Employees
4,065
2,941
2,703
3,459
Man Hours
8,545,454
6,698,568
6,396,858
5,047,355
TRIIR
4.12
3.31
3.10
2.65
DART
2.95
2.00
1.97
1.51
EMR
0.92
0.98
0.91
0.96
Page 5
Qualifications & Experience
Communication and its infrastructure are constantly evolving, and MasTec is not only keeping pace
with that evolution, we're driving it. Our engineering, design, construction, and maintenance services
support the world's most advanced fiber optic, copper, wireless, and satellite networks. Our work
spans large geographic areas all across the country, and we're able to supply crews and equipment to
our customers 24/7. We combine cutting-edge technology, innovative solutions, skilled professionals,
and an unfailing commitment to safety to ensure that our customers are able to meet their customers'
communication needs with the highest levels of reliability and quality.
Wireless
With offices in nearly every state, MasTec has the ability to effectively mobilize the people, skills, and
technologies our clients need to improve service to their customers. We design, construct, and maintain wireless-infrastructure systems for some of the nation's largest cellular, broadband, and digitaldata providers, and we deliver solutions that maximize cost-effectiveness, without sacrificing quality,
safety, or service.
Building competitive
edge solutions.
We keep our employees up-to-date and trained in the most current technologies and practices, and
are committed to reducing negative impact on the environment. We create eco-friendly sites that
minimize or eliminate the equipment hut and associated HVAC, reduce power and battery requirements, and decrease overall carbon emissions.
MasTec handles all private, commercial, and government-cellular projects in-house to ensure that our
clients' needs remain the priority at every stage of a site's development.
Construction and Installation
■ Material Procurement and Management
■ Overhead and Underground Construction
■ OSP / ISP Fiber
■ Node Facilities
■ Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
■ Hub-Site Locations
Design and Engineering
■ RF Engineering
■ Material Procurement and Management
■ Municipality, Utility, Franchise Negotiations and Interface
■ Zoning and Permitting Approvals
■ Project Closeout Documents and Certification
Ongoing Maintenance
■ Storm Remediation
■ On-Call Construction Services
Page 6
Wireline
MasTec has designed, constructed, and maintained successive generations of telecommunication
networks for a wide variety of providers, and our work continues to support the world's most advanced
fiber optic and copper networks in the country. We're constantly striving to evolve right alongside
telecom technology, developing innovative solutions that help our partners deliver the highest quality
services to their customers.
Our managers understand the needs of governments and municipalities as well as those of residents,
and have the ability to balance both to keep projects on track and on budget. We are experts at both
long-haul and in-town installations, delivering robust Internet and telephone services to even the most
remote areas. We've installed a significant portion of the nation's FTTP networks, helping to facilitate
integrated voice, video and data services, higher bandwidths, and competitive service fees as needed.
Our maintenance crews are on call 24/7, immediately responding to service interruptions and network
damage, and often restoring service in moments.
Anticipating needs.
Innovating answers.
Delivering results.
For just about any telecomm need, MasTec provides reliable, scalable and cost-effective solutions
designed to meet consumer demand today and in the future.
■ FTTX Deployment
■ OSP Cabling (Underground and Aerial)
■ Copper/Coax Cable Systems
■ Joint Trench Systems
■ MDU Installation
■ Splicing and Testing
■ Systems Integration
■ Feasibility Studies and Financial Projections
■ Start-up and Testing Services
■ Right-of-Way
■ Cabling/Plowing
■ Directional Boring
■ Trenching
■ Micro Trench
■ Rail Plow
Ongoing Maintenance
■ Emergency Restoration
■ Pole Replacement and Removal
Page 7
Broadband
MasTec has been a leader in broadband technology since its inception, and we've remained at the top
of the industry throughout each successive phase of its evolution. We've installed countless miles of
CATV systems, and our expertise has become a driving factor in next-generation cable networks as
well.
We work with your network-development teams to design the most efficient and effective head-endto-home systems possible. We construct a wide variety of residential, commercial, and MDU networks,
securing easements and coordinating with municipalities as necessary. Our skilled crews work both
overhead and underground to ensure the highest levels of quality, as well as on-time, on-budget
completion of each project. When contracted, our maintenance crews perform both scheduled
updates and emergency repairs, and are on call 24/7 to correct any service interruption as quickly as
possible.
Using our experience
to shape the future of
broadband.
MasTec's expert broadband design, installation, and maintenance capabilities enable our customers
to provide reliable cable and high-speed Internet service to millions of satisfied consumers across the
nation.
■ FTTX Deployment
■ Right-of-Way
■ OSP Cabling (Underground and Aerial)
■ Cabling/Plowing
■ Copper/Coax Cable Systems
■ Directional Boring
■ Joint Trench Systems
■ Trenching
■ MDU Installation
■ Micro Trench
■ Splicing and Testing
■ Rail Plow
■ Systems Integration
■ Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
■ Feasibility Studies and Financial Projections
■ MAN WAN Deployment
■ Start-up and Testing Services
■ Wireless Mesh Networks
Inside Plant Construction and Installation
■ Network Engineering
■ Data Center Installation
Ongoing Maintenance
■ Emergency Restoration
■ Battery Load Tests and Replacement/Disposal
■ Pole Replacement and Removal
■ Shelter and HVAC Maintenance
■ Lock Changes
■ Electrical and Grounds Tests
■ Coax Sweeps Tests and Replacement
■ Grounds Maintenance
■ Generator Maintenance
Logistics Management
Page 8
June 20, 2012 Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, FL 34108 RE: Naples Planned Community FTTP Project To Pelican Bay Foundation Board: At this time, we would like to request Plans, Specifications, and Construction Sheets for the above referenced project so that we may participate in the bidding process. Recent Work History of MP Nexlevel, LLC In the year 2011 MP Nexlevel, LLC has placed over 2,013 miles of fiber optic cable and installed over 10,000 service entrances on FFTH projects. The construction season featured over 145 major projects, with the following breakdown: 32‐RUS projects, 8‐Wind Farms, 20‐Telecommunications projects, 8‐Municipal Power projects, 5‐State Government, 7‐Educational Institute, & 17‐Security and CCTV systems. MP Nexlevel, LLC also maintains several yearly Locating, Maintenance and Service Agreements and many City Owned Projects. In the year 2010 MP Nexlevel, LLC has placed over 1350 miles of fiber optic cable and installed over 5,500 service entrances on FFTH projects. The construction season featured over 60 major projects, with half of them serving the phone companies directly. MP Nexlevel also featured 19 RUS projects, 1 Wind Farms, 8 projects for Power & Municipal Organizations, 9 Municipal power projects, 8 State Government and 1 educational Institute. MP Nexlevel, LLC also maintains several yearly Locating, Maintenance and Service Agreements and many City Owned projects. For 39 years, we've made MP Nexlevel a name of quality... a name that cable television, telephone, fiber optic and electrical companies rely on throughout the Midwest, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Iowa and North and South Dakota, Texas, and Arizona and more. From project to project, we consistently deliver the highest quality service based on our foundation of extensively trained employees and inventory of well‐maintained, state‐of‐the‐art facilities and equipment. The companies that have worked with MP continue to come back and this proves our mission of quality, safety, and customer satisfaction is a success job after job. Thank you for the opportunity to bid these projects.
Sincerely,
Robbi L. Pribyl
Vice President of Operations June 21, 2012 Scott D. Bowles, P.E. President Spectrum Engineering 5524 North County Line Road Auburn, IN 46706 Dear Scott, On Trac, Incorporated is grateful for this opportunity to share information about our company and would be honored to partner with Pelican Bay. On Trac is a company based in the Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee. Officially launched in August of 2002, we began work on key FTTH projects within just a few months of incorporation. From our roots we are concerned about the rapid deployment of FTTH from rural underserved communities to densely populated metroplex areas. Our roots also lead us to execute projects and serve our customers with integrity, professionalism, responsibility, craftsmanship, and humility. On Trac is now in our 10th year in the FTTH industry. Over these years we have served thirteen (13) specific FTTH deployments and today our counter is peaking at just over 130,000 installations. Our customers have seen over 350,000 homes passed with robust fiber networks -‐ and On Trac has been there through most of these builds. Our experience spans both Active and Passive networks and with variances of customer specs on all phases/types of work. While it is true that On Trac falls within the realm of telecommunications contractors, our business model rejects the characteristics of contracting. First, we are not project-‐centered. We do not choose to live by short-‐term fiber projects and the mentality of show up, put up, cash in, and head home. In this we are the “un-‐contractor”. Our focus is long-‐term partnerships with key FTTH deployments to become “one of their own” and service their customers from the installation experience through the maturing of service or maintenance needs as the network peaks and beyond. Second, we are localized. On Trac prides itself on producing fully localized fiber installation systems -‐ local labor, local investments, local vendors, and local commitment. From the manager on down 6019 Ontario Circle Morristown, TN 37814 423.317.0009 to the technicians in the field, our goal is to hire/train locally and support local economies. When On Trac lands in a city we are there to stay -‐ to become part of the culture and contribute to a healthy community. To this point, at the conclusion of our 2011 fiscal year, 73% of all company revenue was invested in local wages, to local personnel at our various local operation centers. In one system, our Project Manager actually serves as Chamber of Commerce President and lobbies for economic development of the city. This “here to stay” model finds its financial support through consistent volume at a consistent location, whereas the conventional contractor lives off a financial model of “one project following another”. The contractor model feeds road crews who invest their earnings “back home” and the presence of that contractor has no benefit to the local community in which they exercise their work. On Trac was built through core convictions that led the founding families to the company name. Convictions such as the centrality of trust with clients, the honest need for competitive pay and reward, “uphill” accountability in listening to field personnel, and replicating excellence through consistency. These dynamics are echoed in our corporate name (On “TRAC”) which reflects a philosophy of Trust (T), Rewards (R), Accountability (A), and Consistency (C). Connectivity for the “end user” is not a side business for us but serves as our core -‐ it’s our DNA. On Trac is committed to the FTTH industry and to serving our customers with their best interests at heart. We bring experience, integrity, enthusiasm, honesty, and a proven record of leadership in fiber connectivity. Again, thanks for your consideration; we wish you all the best! Sincerely, Monte S. Hill Chief Operations Officer On Trac, Incorporated Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained
Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained
Appendix 6 Technology: Further Explained
Fundamental to the understanding of global and national data growth is size as it
expressed in Terabytes, Petabytes, Exabyte, and Zetabytes. A Megabyte is
1,000,000 (106 or six zeros following the numeral one) bytes. Then increasing in
size are Giga (109), Tera (1012), Peta (1015), Exa (1018) and Zeta (1021). In other
words, a Zetabyte is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes.
The number is so large that it is difficult for us to wrap our mind around.
Assuming our national debt today is $15.7 trillion, and each byte was a dollar,
then a Zetabyte would be nearly 64 million times larger than our present national
debt.
The Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast provides an excellent understanding
of the burgeoning demand for data. Several key indicators suggest data growth
will continue to blossom.
The Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast methodology rests on a
combination of analyst projections, in-house estimates and forecasts, and direct
data collection. The analyst projections for broadband connections, video
subscribers, mobile connections, and Internet application adoption come from
SNL Kagan, Ovum, Informa Telecoms & Media, Infonetics, IDC, Frost & Sullivan,
Gartner, ABI, AMI, Strategy Analytics, Screen Digest, Parks Associates, Yankee
Group, Dell’Oro Group, Synergy, comScore, Nielsen, and others. Upon this
foundation are layered Cisco’s own estimates for application adoption, minutes of
use, and kilobytes per minute. The adoption, usage, and bitrate assumptions are
tied to fundamental enablers such as broadband speed and computing speed.1
All usage and traffic results are then validated using data shared with Cisco from
service providers. Figure 1 shows the forecast methodology. The Compound
Annual Growth Rate or CAGR is calculated for each slice of data and all values
are expressed in Petabytes (1015).
1
Cisco Whitepaper, Visual Networking Index, Entering the Zetabyte Era, June 2011
1
The June 1 report goes on to summarize several very interesting statistics.
Namely: Annual global IP traffic will reach the zetabyte threshold (966
exabytes or nearly 1 zetabyte) by the end of 2015. In 2015, global IP traffic will
reach 966 exabytes per year or 80.5 exabytes per month.
2
Global IP traffic has increased eightfold over the past 5 years, and will
increase fourfold over the next 5 years. Overall, IP traffic will grow at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 32 percent from 2010 to 2015.
In 2015, the gigabyte equivalent of all movies ever made will cross the
global Internet every 5 minutes. The global Internet networks will deliver 7.5
petabytes every 5 minutes in 2015.
The “terabyte club” will reach 6 million by 2015. In 2015, there will be 6
million Internet households worldwide generating over a terabyte per month in
Internet traffic, up from just a few hundred thousand in 2010. There will
be over 20 million households generating half a terabyte per month in 2015.
The number of devices connected to IP networks will be twice as high as
the global population in 2015. There will be two networked devices per capita
in 2015, up from one networked device per capita in 2010. Driven in part by the
increase in devices and the capabilities of those devices, IP traffic per capita will
reach 11 gigabytes
3
per capita in 2015, up from 3 gigabytes per capita in 2010.
A growing amount of Internet traffic is originating with non-PC devices. In
2010, only 3 percent of consumer Internet traffic originated with non-PC devices,
but by 2015 the non-PC share of consumer Internet traffic will grow to 13
percent. PC-originated traffic will grow at a CAGR of 33 percent, while TVs,
tablets, smartphones and machine-to-machine (M2M) modules will have traffic
growth rates of 101 percent, 216 percent, 144 percent, and 258 percent,
respectively.
Traffic from wireless devices will exceed traffic from wired devices by 2015.
In 2015, wired devices will account for 46 percent of IP traffic, while Wi-Fi and
mobile devices will account for 54 percent of IP traffic. In 2010, wired devices
accounted for the majority of IP traffic at 63 percent.
4
Busy-hour traffic is growing more rapidly than average traffic. Busy-hour
traffic will increase fivefold by 2015,while average traffic will increase fourfold.
During an average hour in 2015, the traffic will be equivalent to 200 million
people streaming a high-definition video continuously. During the busy hour in
2015, the traffic will be
equivalent to 500 million people streaming a high-definition video continuously.
Five major traffic milestones:
● 2012: Internet video will surpass 50 percent of consumer Internet traffic.
● 2012: The number of households generating over 1 terabyte per month of
Internet traffic will reach 1 million.
5
● 2014: One-fifth of Internet video traffic will come from TVs, handsets, and other
non-PC devices.
● 2015: Internet traffic from wireless devices will surpass the volume of traffic
from wired devices.
● 2015: The annual run rate of global IP traffic will reach the zettabyte threshold
(966 exabytes).
Three major traffic generator milestones:
● 2011: By the end of the year there will be more networked devices than people
on earth.
● 2011: Digital screen surface area will reach 1 square foot per capita.
● 2015: There will be twice as many networked devices as people on earth.
Global Internet Video Highlights
Global Internet video traffic surpassed global peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in
2010, and by 2012 Internet video will account for over 50 percent of
consumer Internet traffic. As anticipated, as of 2010 P2P traffic is no longer the
largest Internet traffic type, for the first time in 10 years. Internet video was 40
percent of consumer
6
Internet in 2010 and will reach 50 percent by year-end 2012.
It would take over 5 years to watch the amount of video that will cross
global IP networks every second in 2015. Every second, 1 million minutes of
video content will cross the network in 2015.
Internet video is now 40 percent of consumer Internet traffic, and will reach
61 percent by the end of 2015,not including the amount of video exchanged
through P2P file sharing. The sum of all forms of video (TV, video on demand
[VoD], Internet, and P2P) will continue to be approximately 90 percent of global
consumer traffic by 2015.
Internet video to TV tripled in 2010. Internet video to TV will continue to grow
at a rapid pace, increasing 17-fold by 2015. Internet video to TV will be over 16
percent of consumer Internet video traffic in 2015, up from 7 percent in 2010.
Video-on-demand traffic will triple by 2015. The amount of VoD traffic in 2015
will be equivalent to 3 billion DVDs per month.2
From Pelican Bay’s perspective, a member will likely use the following:
 1Mb for phone (if using Internet based phone)
 2MB for video conferencing
 8MB-20MB for Web surfing.
 20MB to download and view a High Definition movie
In total, 43MB should provide adequate service today. The business model
plans for 50M download and 50MB upload (synchronous) speed per member.
Plans call for the network to be designed such that members could enjoy a
fourfold increase in speed with a phone call to purchase more bandwidth from
the Network Access Point and simple change in equipment provisioning. Pelican
Bay is planning to install hardware that would allow for twentyfold increase to the
member without significant upgrade costs.
Technology Overview
When determining the optimal set of technologies for broadband deployment, one must
factor in a number of primary considerations. Top on the list is the ability to meet the
needs of the community, both today and in the future. Regardless of the technology
selected, the objective to connect and communicate in Pelican Bay must offer a solution
(or combination of solutions) that will achieve the economic development goals while
improving the quality of life among its residents. It should be noted that an optimal
system design may involve the use of several technologies and should be based upon
the expressed needs of the community. However, regardless of the infrastructure
selected, thorough due diligence is prudent to insure that the business case will support
2
Cisco Whitepaper, Visual Networking Index, Entering the Zetabyte Era, June 2011
7
The investment in new infrastructure must meet the determined measures, based on
reasonable load growth progressions, to avoid costly pre-mature replacements and/or
customer service/reliability problems. Undersized, inadequate or poor quality (including
construction) facilities will not meet Pelican Bay’s stringent measures. It has to be
assured that its projections, based on demand and load profiles as factored into a
reliable modeling program, are accurate and sound.
The premises network of today must have the flexibility to provide for current network
needs while having the capability to facilitate the upgrades and extensions that may be
required in the future, without re-cabling. The greater-bandwidth reach capability of
optical fiber translates into a greater distance capability for any given data rate.
Network reliability and security is of utmost importance in modern telecommunication
systems. Network security must be guaranteed, as increasing levels of sensitive
information are transferred over intranets and the Internet. FTTP provides for the
applications necessary to offer this level of security without impacting the bandwidth
delivery available per customer.
As Pelican Bay has experienced, one of the biggest challenges facing communities
today, once the decision to deploy some manner of broadband is decided, is choosing
the optimal technology; the means to connect and communicate. For the obvious
advantages, and the ability to differentiate the level and scalability of service, Pelican
Bay has determined that FTTP is the choice for them. However, since much has been
written and described as to the pros and cons of the various systems available today,
due diligence would dictate that a cursory overview be provided on each of the
technologies to consider. The following is a brief overview of these systems, including
the advantages and limitations that were evaluated prior to selecting FTTP. The
remainder portion of this section focuses specifically on FTTP and the various
architectures offered through that delivery choice.
8
Fiber To The Premises (FTTP)
Of greatest significance is the premise that whatever transport technology is selected, it
must be capable of adapting to the future demands placed on the broadband
infrastructure. And, though the electronics hardware will undoubtedly require upgrades,
the underlying determinant should be to invest in a transport medium that will not require
“fork lifting” anytime over the next three decades. With this being the prime factor, there
is really only one viable option to consider: Fiber To The Premises. FTTP offers the
greatest scalability, reliability, and security. FTTP’s chief limitation has been initial cost.
However, the cost to install and operate such a system is steadily decreasing while
capabilities are increasing (“Moore’s Law”).
When looking at a comprehensive community wide system, FTTP has the ability to offer
the most viable set of services when compared to all other commercially available
information infrastructures. A good FTTP system can offer a minimum of 4 phone lines,
up to 400 channels of video and up to 100Mb of Internet Access. Additionally all
services can be delivered with at least 99.999% reliability and employ state of the art
security and encryption techniques, combined with unparalleled quality of service.
Future scalability usually mitigates any marginal cost difference.
Technology Determinants
What actually is used to select an optimal technology for broadband deployment must
factor in a number of primary considerations:
 The ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future.
 Improve the quality of life among its residents.
 May involve the use of several technologies
 Based upon the expressed needs of the community
 Thorough due diligence is prudent to ensure that the business case will support
According to Jupiter Research, a respected technology research house, “tech savvy”
broadband consumers may demand as much as 84 Mb/s3 within the next four years. In
its report titled, A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter’s researchers
concluded that mainstream users may demand between 57 and 72 Mb/s. Much of this
forecasted connectivity requirement is anticipated due to the real-time video applications
and related. Comparatively, the average broadband user will be demanding between
2.2 Mb/s – 7.8 Mb/s.
In January 2005, Verizon announced its plans to overbuild its Fort Wayne, Indiana area
market with complete fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP). Key among the factors stated by
both Gale Given, Verizon Great Lakes Region President and Suri Surinder, Verizon
North Central Market Area President was the combination of network reliability, speed
3
A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter Research published findings reported by
Internetweek on November 4, 2004, available at www.internetweek.com.
9
and limitless potential for voice, data and video connections4. Equally important is fiber’s
workability in inclement weather and provisioning for installations and repairs.
In its May 2004 Industry Focus report, Deutsche Bank’s Global Equity Research group
summed up its findings of the future in telecommunications infrastructure by stating,
“Fiber will be the access medium for the next century.” 5 Among the prime benefits
offered by a FTTP deployment, Deutsche Bank found:
o Longevity-longer life expectancy. Conservative estimates place fiber’s life
expectancy at 100 years as compared with 25-30 for copper and coaxial cable.
o Less active components in the loop. Reduces issues with latency, down time
and technology refresh expenses.
o Scalability. Electronics can be replaced, without impacting the fiber infrastructure
or requiring replacement/overbuild once sufficient fiber is installed. Allows
flexible and targeted technology refresh to areas and/or clients demanding more
bandwidth.
Deutsche Bank also evaluated the benefits of taking just FTTC (Fiber to the Curb). They
found that this manner of construction would require a significant level of investment in
existing legacy copper circuits and that the active electronics within the local loop would
increase significantly. All this to provide VDSL service with the potential to reach 40
Mb/s (under optimal conditions), which Deutsche Bank (and others) expect to be
insufficient within the next five years.
In the 14 years from 1994 to 2008, the Ethernet revolution drove the progressive
development of higher bandwidth Ethernet standards from 10 Mb/s to 10 Gb/s.
Applications are the driving force behind these demands. With HDTV growing as the
most recent entry as the “killer App” (requiring 19 Mbps in its native format) delivery
multiple streams of this content to the subscriber brings with it a whole new set of issues
for copper based facilities. Significant capital investment will be required of operators to
support “whole house TV” expectations of today’s customer. Despite numerous
upgrades to copper cables, fiber bandwidth and reach capability have always remained
significantly ahead of copper. Significant advancement in video channel compression
(known as MPEG 4) is reducing the practical bandwidth of a high definition channel.
This will accommodate HDTV over traditional HFC and copper plant (compressing it
down to 11 Mb from 19 Mb), but it comes at a high price. FTTP allows the video service
provider to forgo an expensive wholesale upgrade (of all channels to MPEG 4) while not
sacrificing any ability to offer full HDTV channel line-ups.
HFC is largely the closest competition to FTTP. However, in a best case scenario each
870 MHz HFC Node could be upgraded to 1GHz and therefore would be capable of
carrying 156Mbps over four bonded channels with the bandwidth of 38 Mbps per
channel under laboratory conditions. Many MSOs limit the bandwidth output to
100Mbps shared between all users on a given node. This shared bandwidth would be
delivered to a group of homes typically between 200 and 2000 by current designs. In
Pelican Bay’s case, 100Mbps would be shared by 360 subscribers. This sharing during
busy season often leads to slower experience for users. To increase speeds per
4
Verizon to Create 850 Jobs, Fiber Optic Service in Fort Wayne Area, reported January 19, 2005 by Inside
Indiana Business with Gerry Dick, available at www.insideindianabusiness.com
5
FTTP-No Other Way to Entertain, Deutsche Bank Industry Focus Report for the Wireline Industry,
produced by Victor Shvets, Nigel Coe, CFA, and Andrew Kieley, CFA, published May 13, 2004.
10
customer, HFC networks will need to deploy more fiber deeper into the network and
increase the bandwidth of amplifiers to meet increased demand. Presently, Pelican Bay
has approximately 18 nodes, which indicates that the node size is at roughly 360
subscribers. As a hypothetical example; if all users have equal access and are sharing
the system at the same time, uniformly and continuously, each would experience
Therefore Pelican Bay members could realize rates between 0.27Mbps down and
0.13Mbps up. Thankfully, not all users access the system at precisely the same time
and moist internet traffic is intermittent by nature. However, internet based video is
about to change the landscape forever.
By comparison, FTTP offers this 5.1 Gpbs capability for allocation exclusively to video
delivery, a second optical wavelength can provide up to 2.5 Gbps of Internet, phone,
plus a myriad of other IP applications to a group of homes typically between 16 or as
many as 64 by current designs. This equates to 156 Mbps and 78 Mbps respectively
per subscriber; or more than a five hundred fold improvement in performance when
using FTTP.
Domestic FTTP
Although FTTP has been around in several forms for several years, the actual domestic
number of homes connected has been small: 5,500 in 2001 and 22,500 by September
2002. Note that by September 2002 only 72,100 homes had been passed. By 2004 the
number of homes passed was 970,000 having approximately 146,500 subscribers. This
was achieved in large part to a significant effort on the part of Verizon Communication
commitment to pass 3 million homes in the next two years. The growth continues and
as of March, 2012, 22.4 million homes had been passed, with more than 7 million
connected.
A common misconception about North American FTTP is that Verizon is the only real
company providing FTTP. While Verizon is indeed the largest provider, by a very large
margin, there is actually a very long tail of providers. Verizon has 2.05 million homes
connected as of March 30, 2008. Verizon’s announcement that it will slow its FTTH
deployments has been offset by smaller carriers and municipalities, many of whom will
scale their efforts as broadband stimulus money kicks in.
11
General Discussion on FTTP Architectures
In the arena of FTTP architectures, two distinct network technologies have emerged;
these are GEM (GPON Encapsulation Mode) based and Ethernet based (EPON and
Active). The Ethernet standard was the basis for developing the IP (internet protocol)
used in the development of the World Wide Web. While the Ethernet transmission
protocol and the ATM transmission protocols are the two primary methods of data
transmission used in the world today, GPON is quickly becoming a widely accepted and
strong contender for FTTP space replacing the ATM based BPON in the United States.
Ethernet companies claim that ATM has died in the local access market (local loop)
while ATM companies claim their product better supports QoS (quality of service) and
Service Level Agreements (SLA’s). The claims of all groups have driven the other to
ensure that their network solutions provide the full spectrum of: multi-service delivery;
inter-connectivity; compliance to existing communications standards and protocols;
network and equipment inter-operability.
ATM
ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) was first developed as an efficient means to transmit
data over networks originally designed to carry voice signals. Voice transmission over
telephony networks uses TDM (time division multiplexing). In this scheme each user is
assigned a time slot and no other user is allowed access to that slot. The problem is
that when that time slot becomes available and it is empty, the transmission is sent
anyway thus wasting the bandwidth. With ATM only time slots containing information
are transmitted or received. Empty time slots are passed over or dismissed. ATM data
is transmitted in fixed-length 53 byte cells (with 48 byte payload and 5 byte overhead) as
specified by the ATM protocol. The effect of the ATM cell structure on IP/Ethernet based
data protocols is covered later in this document.
An ATM network is made up of an ATM switch and ATM endpoints. An ATM switch is
responsible for cell transit through an ATM network. The job of an ATM switch is well
defined: It accepts the incoming cell from an ATM endpoint or another ATM switch. It
then reads and updates the cell header information and quickly switches the cell to an
output interface toward its destination. An ATM endpoint (or end system) contains an
ATM network interface adapter. Examples of ATM endpoints are workstations, routers,
digital service units (DSUs), LAN switches, and video coder-decoders (CODECs).
All of the major telephony companies use ATM technology to a greater or lesser degree
for the transmission of data over their networks. Most of the major telephony equipment
vendors manufacture ATM or ATM compatible equipment. As digital transmission
became ubiquitous in telephony networks, ATM was adapted to carry voice as well as
data. With the advent of the FSAN6 initiative, the first FTTP models used ATM
technology because it was well understood and the equipment was readily available.
Ethernet
Both EPON and ATM system solutions are based on the Ethernet protocol for data
networking. There are several LAN technologies in use today, but Ethernet is by far the
most popular. Industry estimates indicate that as of 1994 over 40 million Ethernet nodes
had been installed worldwide. The widespread popularity of Ethernet ensures that there
6
The FSAN committee is made up of 16 of the biggest telecommunications equipment vendors and carriers.
12
is a large market for Ethernet equipment, which also helps keep the technology
competitively priced. In late 1972 Xerox developed the first experimental Ethernet
system to interconnect the Xerox Alto, a personal workstation with a graphical user
interface. The experimental Ethernet was used to link Altos to one another, and to
servers and laser printers.
From the time of the first Ethernet standard, the
specifications and the rights to build Ethernet technology have been made easily
available to anyone. This openness, combined with the ease of use and robustness of
the Ethernet system, resulted in a large Ethernet market and is another reason Ethernet
is so widely implemented in the computer industry.
Formal specifications for Ethernet were published in 1980 by a multi-vendor consortium
that created the DEC-Intel-Xerox (DIX) standard. This effort turned the experimental
Ethernet into an open, production-quality Ethernet system that operates at 10 Mbps.
Ethernet technology was then adopted for standardization by the LAN standards
committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802). The IEEE
standard was first published in 1985, with the formal title of "IEEE 802.3 Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer
Specifications." The International Organization has since adopted the IEEE standard for
Standardization (ISO), which makes it a worldwide networking standard.
The IEEE standard provides an "Ethernet like" system based on the original DIX
Ethernet technology. All Ethernet equipment since 1985 is built according to the IEEE
802.3 standard. The 802.3 standard is periodically updated to include new technology.
Since 1985 the standard has grown to include new media systems for 10/100 Mbps and
Gigabit Fast Ethernet.
The Ethernet system consists of three basic elements:
 The physical medium used to carry Ethernet signals between data devices
(this physical medium can be coaxial cable, twisted pair copper wire, radio
waves or fiber optic cable).
 A set of medium access control rules embedded in each Ethernet interface
that allow multiple computers to fairly arbitrate access to the shared Ethernet
channel.
 An Ethernet frame that consists of a standardized set of bits used to carry
data over the system.
The vast majority of computer and data device vendors today equip their products with
10/100 Mbps Ethernet attachments, making it possible to link all manner of computers
with an Ethernet LAN. The ability to link a wide range of computers using a vendorneutral network technology is an essential feature for today's LANs. Most LANs must
support a wide variety of computers purchased from different vendors, which requires a
high degree of network interoperability of the sort that Ethernet provides. Growth of the
World Wide Web, the Internet, has made Ethernet the single most dominant platform for
data.
In the telephony industry there has been a major move to manufacture Ethernet
interfaces for all current voice delivery transport and switch technology. The reason for
this is that technologies based on Ethernet are more cost effective, more prevalent and
equally reliable to those of ATM. All the major telephony equipment vendors now
provide Ethernet compliant transport and switch technology in their product lines.
13
The advent of VoIP and IP video technology based on Ethernet have taken FTTP into a
realm where, for the first time, fully convergent media, voice, video and data services
can be offered to commercial and residential customers over one fully integrated
platform. Only FTTP technologies that are Ethernet based can honestly make this claim.
ATM vs. Ethernet
The key difference between Ethernet and ATM FTTP systems is that in Ethernet based
networks data is transmitted in variable-length packets of up to 1,518 bytes according to
the IEEE 802.3 protocol for Ethernet, whereas in ATM networks data is transmitted in
fixed-length 53 byte cells divided into a 48 byte payload and 5 byte overhead as
specified by the ATM protocol. The ATM format does not allow efficient transmission of
traffic formatted according to the Internet protocol (IP). The Internet protocol calls for
data to be segmented into variable-length packets of up to 65,535 bytes. For an ATM
system to carry IP traffic the packets must be broken into 48 byte segments with a 5byte header attached to each one. This process is time consuming and complicated and
adds additional cost to the OLT and ONTs. Moreover, 5 bytes of bandwidth (10%) are
wasted for every 48-byte segment creating an overhead that is commonly referred to as
the “ATM cell tax”. The variable length of the Ethernet packet mates well with the
variable length of the IP packet
The major advantage of Ethernet over ATM systems is in transmission of streaming or
IP video. The next generation of video delivery is based on the IP protocol. As stated
earlier in this document, ATM systems are incapable of supporting either the streaming
content of the video itself or the protocols (IGMP snooping) required to manage channel
selection or distribute the video stream. At the present time there are no known ATM
based protocols in existence or in development that will allow, manage or distribute IP
video, DSS, or IP multicast video.
Security has been a hot area in ATM based FTTP architectures. BPON security is tricky
because any OLT can read any cell. Like the voice network, there's no inherent security
mechanism to prevent intrusion. However, the current BPON specification does provide
some rudimentary form of security, called scrambling. Each cell's payload runs through
encryption algorithms that mix up (or “scrambles”) the data using a 24-bit encryption key.
The shortness of the encryption key makes it very weak (even 40-bit keys are
considered weak), (128 bit) but changing the encryption key's key on the fly improves
the security somewhat.
In Ethernet based systems the security of data on a sub-network uses the same
methods and standards that have been established for Ethernet data network encryption
and is therefore not an issue.
While it is true that development of ATM based FTTP solutions started earlier that
Ethernet based solutions, market trends in several industries; telephony, entertainment,
data and FTTP are moving the focus away from ATM and towards Ethernet. Whatever
early advantages ATM had over Ethernet in QoS and SLA capabilities have, in the past
year, evaporated in the face of fully integrated, feature rich ACTIVE and EPON system
solutions. ATM and other data networking technologies revolve around core-to-core
exchange of information. They are not specifically designed to facilitate information
exchange at the user level, as is Ethernet.
14
As stated earlier ATM based solution providers claim that their systems better support
QoS end to end. This claim is at best hollow as Ethernet also fully supports end-to-end
QoS. The benefits of ATM simply do not outweigh its significant inadequacies in
bandwidth delivery, high price tags, excessive processing power required to
management and provision the network, multiple levels of emulation, difficulty of
deployment and lack of support for IP based technological advances. While research
and development continue into new and more streamlined Ethernet delivery
technologies, ATM R&D has stagnated. To our knowledge, there is little or no new
research devoted to advancing ATM, in fact some equipment vendors have dropped
their ATM equipment lines altogether. In the Long Haul telephony carrier world every
major equipment manufacturer offers native data transport products based on GigE Fast
Ethernet. There is no such comparable offering for ATM. This is a telling point.
According to Merrill Lynch & Co Global Securities Research and Economics Group in a
paper entitled “Passive Optical Networks Sharing the Fiber” written on May 15th 2001,
“ATM has clearly died as a access technology, taken over by Gigabit Ethernet, and in
the core by IP/MPLS routers. PONs (FTTP) is an access technology, not a networking
one. Ethernet is scalable from 10 Mbps to 10 Gbps with probably the best
price/performance.”
In short, this is the dilemma facing ATM. Fiber to the home is first and foremost all about
access: access to content and access to the “network”. Ethernet is an access
technology that meshes with FTTP while ATM is a network technology that requires a
very large hammer to shape it for the access niche. While ILECs (incumbent local
exchange carriers) may prefer BPON and may in fact deploy it, content providers,
MSOs, ELECs and municipalities will certainly prefer the Ethernet based technologies
for their simplicity, scalability, and performance and converged content capability.
Quality of Service (QOS)
This section of the document will examine and define the QoS, prioritization and
management capabilities of the Transport and Interface Layers individually and in
conjunction. The network must be flexible enough to meet the full range of IETF
(Internet Engineering Task Force) and IEEE standards based provider and customer
requirements in this arena.
Logic dictates that some data is more important than others. Therefore management of
the transport and distribution of converged content requires the prioritization of the
different types of traffic. The cities network must be capable of allowing data types to be
prioritized according to their relative importance to the end user. Traffic prioritization in
residential and commercial or business applications may be different due to the nature of
the traffic being handled. For both residential and business applications voice traffic will
always have the highest priority. While some traffic prioritization may vary according to
the needs of the subscriber, generically traffic will be prioritized as follows: voice will
receive the highest priority with video second and data third.
QoS (quality of service) refers to the capability of a network to provide better service to
selected network traffic over various technologies, including Frame Relay, Asynchronous
Transfer Mode (ATM), Ethernet and 802.1 networks, SONET, and IP-routed networks
that may use any or all of these underlying technologies. End-to-end QoS opens the
door for Ethernet based networks to handle applications that native Ethernet handles
15
poorly, such as latency-sensitive applications like video conferencing and telephony (IP
and TDM), and applications that require guaranteed levels of bandwidth, including most
business networking applications.
The primary goal of QoS is to provide priority including dedicated bandwidth, controlled
jitter and latency (required by some real-time and interactive traffic), and improved loss
characteristics. Also important is making sure that providing priority for one or more
traffic flows does not make other flows fail. QoS technologies provide the elemental
building blocks used for applications in FTTP networks.
By design and in practice, Ethernet is an access technology. By definition, FTTP
networks, such as the network studied for Pelican Bay, are access networks. As such
the networking technology chosen, must supply the most complete and fully functional
security and prioritization methods available.
The ATM Traffic Management Specification Version 4.1 (AF-TM-0121.000) presents a
set of generic functions that enable ATM networks to manage and control traffic and
congestion. In an ATM network, Connection Admission Control (CAC) determines the
admissibility of connections. By definition, regulation of connections cannot be
accommodated within a connectionless IP/Ethernet architecture. To overcome this,
Ethernet based networks must have the ability to assign traffic classes within their
routing/switching engines to provide analogous service functionality. Moreover, the
capability to natively classify based on Ethernet and the IP protocol stack enables the
Ethernet solution to be significantly more effective than ATM in the access arena.
The FTTP manufacturing market currently consists of a combination of multiplexing
options, fiber configurations and traffic protocols. Six companies provide four distinctly
different approaches to bring fiber to the home. A discussion of the architectures,
protocols and optical fiber configurations is provided herein. The discussion is not
intended to provide exhaustive detail, but offer enough detail for a solid indoctrination
into the fundamentals surrounding FTTP.
It is important to note that the general acceptance of the technology is relatively new and
hence has not provided the public with a clear manufacturing winner. FTTP is beyond
the bleeding edge but remains on the leading edge. Short of several more years and a
subset of clear winners, each manufacturer’s products remain somewhat proprietary.
The architectures and protocols used can be summarized as five broad categories:
BPON, GPON, EPON, Active, Hybrid Active/EPON.
To date, the battle appears to be narrowing to two architectures: EPON and GPON. In
summary, EPON has the largest world market share; GPON enjoys the largest U.S.
market share. EPON is based on IEEE standards; a standards body made up of
engineers and manufacturers with a history of providing backward compatibility. MSO’s,
ISP’s, Municipals, and some rural telephone companies have gravitated to this offering.
Development into the next generation 10Gbps EPON product standard is well underway.
10Gb products are expected to be generally available by late 2010. The standard is
backward compatible with 1Gb and 100Gb and 10Gb products. This eliminates
expensive replacement of the ONT’s at the subscriber.
16
GPON is based on the ITU standards from FSAN which is made up of consumers;
namely the largest telephone companies in the world -- Verizon, AT&T to some degree,
and some rural telephone companies.
The IEEE and ITU met together for the first time in Geneva Switzerland on June 19th and
20th, 2008 to discuss combining standards for more ubiquitous interoperability. Those in
attendance surmise that standards consensus will likely be limited to layers 1 and 2.
What is clear however, is that GPON’s 10G WDM project is now dead and EPON has a
clear 18 month advantage.
It should also be noted that EPON in many respects is natively easier to manage than
GPON and requires fewer hardware components. Some manufacturers have developed
fairly comprehensive management platforms to rise above this short coming. As of this
writing, GPON is about 10% more expensive to deploy when compared to EPON.
PON Architectures
Active vs. PON based Networks
The two major components of any network design are the outside plant (the fiber optic
cable and ancillary support equipment) and the inside plant (the equipment used to light
the fiber). The outside plant is the path down which the information will flow from service
provider to end-user. The outside plant is the permanent portion of the network. Much
like a road it is always there. What travels down it may take many forms that change
over time, but the road remains the same. The inside plant channels the content down
that road. It determines the amount of content and to whom it is delivered.
Networks are made up of an aggregation of several sub-networks. The amount of
content delivered to any one end user on the network is determined by the amount of
available bandwidth and the degree to which the sub-networks are split. The greater the
split, the less bandwidth is available to the end user and the less equipment required.
The smaller the split the greater the bandwidth to each end user and the greater the
amount of inside and outside plant equipment required. To be economically viable a
network must balance bandwidth requirements to the end user against the capital cost of
building the network.
PONs (passive optical networks) typically do not have active components from the point
of signal delivery to the point of signal receipt. BPON, EPON and GPON systems are all
considered to be passive network architectures. Figure 6 below is a simplified PON
diagram.
17
Figure 6
S a te llite
S e rv ic e D e liv e ry o v e r P O N
T e le p h o n e
V id e o
F ib e r O p tic C a b le
T ra n sm is s io n ra te :
D a ta
O LT
ONU
APON:
1 5 5 ,2 0 4 o r 6 2 2 M b p s
EPON:
1 0 0 M b p s o r 1 ,0 0 0 M b p s
C o m p u te r
Set Top Box
V o ic e
T e le v is io n
As can be seen in Figure 7, voice, video and data are fed into the Optical Line Terminal
(OLT). These feeds are then transmitted down the fiber optic cable to the ONT (optical
network terminal) located in or on the side of the home or business. Delivering up to
1,000 Mbps (1 Gbps) to a single home is neither desirable nor economically feasible.
Therefore to scale the network for the most efficient operation, an optical splitter is
added between the OLT and the ONT. This allows the available PON bandwidth to be
shared between several users.
Figure 7
Satellite
Shared Bandwidth over PON
ONU
ONU
ONU
Passive Splitter
Vid eo
ONU
Fiber Optic Cable
ONU
Transmission rate:
Data
OLT
APON:
155, 204 or 622Mbps
EPON:
100 Mbps or 1,000 Mbps
ONU
ONU
Voice
ONU
ONU
ONU
The term passive is used to describe this type of network because the splitter itself is not
a powered device. Split ratios can vary as needed over PON network, but the most
commonly used for service delivery in a residential FTTP application are 1:16 and 1:32.
18
Optically, between the OLT and the ONT, both the BPON and the EPON typically use
CWDM (coarse wave division multiplexing) to transmit and receive signals down a single
fiber. The downstream voice and data (OLT to ONT) signal path typically operates on
the 1490nm wavelength. The upstream (ONT to OLT) signal path typically operates on
the 1310nm wavelength. RF video traffic downstream (OLT to ONT) signal path typically
operates on the 1550nm wavelength . By using different wavelengths of light for the
downstream and upstream signal paths, PONs are able to use a single fiber.
The third system, Active, is very similar in overall design to BPON and EPON with two
exceptions. The first is that the split of the signal is achieved using an optical switch
located as close to the subscriber as is possible. The second is that the Active system,
uses a single fiber for downstream and another for upstream signal delivery. Both
directions use the same wavelength of light (typically 1310nm).
Figure 8 below
illustrates service delivery on the Active system.
Figure 8
Typical Active Network
Satellite
ONU
ONU
ONU
Video
ONU
Downstream Fiber
Upstream Fiber
Data
OLT
ONU
Optical
Switch
Transmission rate:
Active: 100 Mbps or 1,000 Mbps
ONU
ONU
Voice
ONU
ONU
ONU
Subscriber bandwidth distribution (analogous to the split ration of a PON) differs in the
Active system. Depending on the type and network configuration of the optical switch,
bandwidth distribution can be varied in any way that fits network requirements. With
Active systems it is misleading to speak of typical split ratios, but in most common
residential scenarios for FTTP applications splits of 1:32 or 1:64 would perhaps be the
most used.
The split ratio, or bandwidth distribution ratio in its simplest terms is the number of ONT’s
fed off a single OLT. As stated earlier, the amount of bandwidth delivered to each end
19
user (and therefore the capital cost of the network) is determined by this ratio. This split
size also determines the services that can be delivered because service directly equates
to bandwidth. Table 2 shows the bandwidth available to subscribers as a function of
split ratio based on network type. For the purpose of illustration, consider the
transmission rates as packages to be divided (split) and delivered to the end users.
Table 1
GPON
EPON
BPON
1.244 Gbits/sec
622 Mbits/sec
2.488 Gbits/sec
56%
70%
93%
697 Mbits/sec
435 Mbits/sec
2300 Mbits/sec
Limited and not standardized.
All services over IP / Ethernet.
Over ATM
Native and standardized (using a
variant of GFP) or ATM.
32
32
32/64/128
20 km
20 km
20km
AES
Churning
AES
None
None
Standardized at 3 levels
None
Standardized
Sub 50-ms fiber protection
Standardized
Standardized
Standardized
Raw capacity
Efficiency (usable bandwidth
after overhead)
Revenue bandwidth (usable
bandwidth)
TDM transport method
Number of ONTs (homes or
businesses)
Max. PON length
Security encryption
Power leveling
Protection
cuts/noise
against
fiber
Third wavelength for video
The Different PONs
Although PON technology has been available since the mid-1990s, it has only been over
the last few years that the standards have matured and commercial PONs have been
implemented.
The original standard for APON, also known as BPON, is characterized by an ATM
architecture ratified by the ITU in the mid-1990s. BPON supports voice and data using
an ATM encapsulation mode, where all services are transported over the PON using
ATM.
The most recent standard is the GPON standard, also ratified by the ITU. It offers direct
support of TDM and Ethernet traffic in their native formats or via an optional ATM
encapsulation method. GPON also offers the bandwidth service providers require for
next-generation services.
There are some key differences among what each of these PON standards will offer a
service provider. These differences are shown in the Table above. In particular, these
20
differences affect IP service deployment, bandwidth, efficiency, and split ratio
differences.
IP Service Deployment: As shown in the table, there is a vast difference among the three
options in how each PON protocol supports legacy and emerging IP services.
APON/BPON uses an ATM layer for its transport of services, which is an inefficient use
of network protocols. Therefore, while BPON networks have been useful in supporting
legacy services, they are likely not the best choice for emerging IP services better
served with more efficient protocol support and higher speeds.
EPON uses the Ethernet protocol over a Passive Optical Network. EPONs inherently
support all IP networks today through their use of Ethernet protocols. They are therefore
positioned for all-IP service networks. Their support for legacy services (i.e., POTS, T1,
E1, etc.), however, requires circuit-emulation over Ethernet services using a protocol
called Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge or PWE3. Third party devices are required
to provide legacy voice services, thereby increasing the cost to serve.
GPONs are based on providers' requirements as defined within the FSAN organization
(www.fsanweb.org) and the ITU, and therefore may be best aligned with providers'
desires for legacy and IP support. As shown in the table, GPONs support legacy
services such as T1/E1 in their native formats through re-use of SONET's GFP protocol,
reclassified as GEM in the GPON standard. GPON also fully supports all Ethernet
protocols as well as VLANs, quality and class of service, IMGP, and other Layer 2+
mechanisms for full support of emerging IP services.
This mix of legacy and IP services support gives providers a migration path to all-IP
services by allowing today's networks to be deployed with legacy services (POTS, T1,
E1, analog video) yet ensuring a seamless migration to all-IP services. For today's
provider, GPON offers the best of all worlds -- a mixture of legacy and IP services as
well as a very efficient all IP network.
Bandwidth and bandwidth efficiency: A prime factor for a carrier analyzing the merit of a
PON is the overall bandwidth available for services sold to customers. This available
bandwidth can also be termed as the "revenue bits" of the network. Revenue bits are
derived from the overall network bandwidth with the protocol overhead or tax subtracted
from it.
While EPON supports 1.25 Gbits/sec up and downstream today with 10Gbits/sec up and
downstream in development, GPON works at upstream speeds of 1.244 Gbits/sec and
downstream speeds of 2.488 Gbits/sec. Moreover, when the bandwidth utilization is
taken into account, EPON performance becomes even worse. With only about 60%
efficiency, EPON's revenue bandwidth is limited to 697 Mbits/sec while GPON, with its
bandwidth utilization, can allow the service provider to allocate about 2300 Mbits/sec.
PONs for fiber to the home and business are emerging as a clear winner with major
carriers around the world for delivering voice, video, and data services. As service
providers seek elegant ways to deploy new IP services, only EPON and GPON deliver
on the promise of an economical network for the delivery of these services while also
offering a migration path from today's legacy network to an all-IP architecture.
21
Much is being written these days about voice over IP (VoIP), IPTV, video-on-demand
over the Internet, and other emerging applications that are currently, or will be, deployed
in service provider networks. It would appear that EoIP or Everything over IP is the
current industry trend. There is little debate about the market's demand for these
services or the likelihood of these services being provided. The impact of companies like
Vonage is indicative of early market demand and acceptance.
The recent exploratory tenders by major providers for video and television services over
IP are a further indicator of major deployments, as providers seek new revenue streams
to both increase top-line revenue to combat ever-tightening profits in the consumer
market, as well as decrease customer churn through "sticky" applications like television
and next-generation entertainment services.
While there is little doubt IP-based services and the all-IP network are coming, questions
about the correct infrastructure, especially on the access network, remain. xDSL,
passive optical networks (PONs), and point-to-point fiber networks all have various pros
and cons. The focus on the various flavors of PON, will show that of the varieties
available in the market today, EPON and GPON offer very robust migration paths
service providers seek for today's network as well as the bandwidth required to deliver
on the promise of these new services.
PONs in general offers a number of advantages over legacy infrastructures:
 PONs by definition are passive, meaning they do not require traditional active
components between the central office and customer premises. These active
components generally require power to operate and are therefore more
expensive to initially deploy (i.e., more capital expenses, capex) and also
more expensive to maintain in the outside plant (i.e., more operating
expenses, opex).

PONs are also by definition usually shared among numerous users, allowing
the capital costs of trenching or pulling a single fiber from the central office to
the customers to be shared among many users, thereby improving the return
on investment (ROI) on capex. Security and bandwidth-sharing mechanisms
inherent in the PON protocols ensure that the sharing of the fiber is secure
and transparent to the users.

Because a single high-speed optical interface in the central office is now
capable of driving fiber-based services to multiple customers, the footprint
requirements in the central office for a similar number of customers is much
lower compared with other solutions involving point-to-point fibers to each
customer.

PONs promise to support both legacy services (POTS, analog video) and
broadband services (VoIP, digital video over IP, IPTV, etc).

PONs support the sharing of one common access network (physical and
protocols) for all residential customers (for POTS, video, and data services)
and many business customers (for T1/E1 and Ethernet services), therefore
reducing the number of discrete overlay access networks necessary to
provide services to each group.
22
These advantages have resulted in a significant increase in the adoption of PON as an
access architecture over the last three years, with major deployments in Asia and the
USA, in particular among NTT and the RBOCs.
GEM over GPON
Despite the predictions of TDM services' rapid demise due to the emergence of VoIPbased services, and the replacement of TDM-infrastructure with packet-based
infrastructure, TDM services have proven very resilient. This is in part due to the
robustness and functionality of TDM-based end user equipment, which is the result of
decades of development and deployment of T1/E1.
In fact, more than $25 billion worth of TDM services are sold every year worldwide to
businesses of all sizes for leased-line or network-access applications. T1/E1 services
still account for a substantial amount of operator revenue in 2005, and they will continue
to do so for many years to come.
Therefore, it is important that new access technologies such as gigabit passive optical
networking (GPON) be capable of delivering TDM services. GPON is a low-cost, highperformance broadband fiber optic technology that delivers the processing power
needed for applications such as HDTV, VoIP and IPTV (see Figure 1). GPON delivers
unprecedented high bit rate support of up to 2.488 Gbit/s while enabling the transport of
multiple services, specifically data and TDM, in native formats and with extremely high
efficiency. In January 2003, GPON standards were ratified by the ITU-T and are known
as ITU-T Recommendations G.984.1, G.984.2 and G.984.3.
Figure 1 GPON Access
An upswing of GPON deployment is rapidly approaching. Current forecasts predict that
approximately 12.5 million GPON links will be deployed by 2008. Experts estimate that
approximately 1 million of those links will be used to deliver TDM services.
To manage this key requirement for GPON's support of TDM, the Full Service Access
23
Network (FSAN) Group, a forum of operators and vendors that worked to standardize
GPON in ITU-T G.984, made TDM service transport a central element of the FSAN
standard.
There are currently two alternatives for delivering TDM services over GPON. The first
appears in ITU-T G.984, which defines a solution for transporting TDM over GPON using
GPON Encapsulation Method (GEM). This mode is commonly referred to as native TDM
over GPON Encapsulation Method, or as TDM over GEM (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Native TDM over GPON encapsulation method, or, TDM over GEM
Native TDM over GEM provides transport of unstructured TDM in the GPON network
from the optical line termination (OLT) to the optical network unit (ONT). The TDM
network is terminated at the OLT, and TDM circuits are recreated at the ONT.
Native TDM over GEM supports only the GPON part of the path traversed by the TDM
service. A TDM service needs to be delivered to the OLT, and encapsulated using GEM
for transport over the GPON network before it is finally delivered to the ONT. TDM
services arrive through a TDM cross-connect into the OLT. Within the OLT, a TDM
backplane carries the traffic onto dedicated TDM circuitry off of the OLT line card, where
it is encapsulated into GEM.
With the adoption of IP and packet-based infrastructure as a ubiquitous unifying network,
a second approach to delivering TDM services over packet networks is now feasible.
This approach makes fewer assumptions about the underlying properties of the physical
transport and is known as circuit emulation service.
CES
CES is a straightforward tunneling technology derived from the pseudo-wire approach
developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Pseudo-Wire Edge-to-Edge
Emulation (PWE3) working group. Pseudo-wire was developed to support transport of
non-Ethernet/IP traffic such as T1/E1, ATM and frame relay across packet networks.
CES, specifically, is the technology used for transporting TDM and synchronization over
Ethernet, IP and MPLS networks.
First made available to the market in 1998, CES was not standardized until the IETF
made it part of the standardization efforts of the PWE3 working group. The work done in
PWE3 formed the basis for parallel efforts in ITU-T, the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF)
24
and the MPLS Forum – all of which ratified standards and specifications for CES in
2004.
Currently, CES comprises two modes – the first is structure-agnostic and is referred to
as Structure Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP). The second mode supports structured
and fractional T1/E1 services and is referred to as CES over Packet Switched Networks
(CESoPSN). The IETF is finalizing a third mode, referred to as circuit emulation over
packet (CEP), to be used for transporting high rate TDM traffic including STM-1/OC-3.
CES already has been implemented in network solutions in metro Ethernet, DOCSIS
hybrid fiber coax (HFC) and fixed wireless applications worldwide. It has gained industrywide acceptance as a key element in the evolution of Ethernet, IP and MPLS networking
infrastructure and the convergence of voice and data.
CES works by taking a TDM stream at the ingress to the packet network link, cutting it
up into segments referred to as payloads. The relevant packet header (Ethernet, IP
and/or MPLS) is added to each payload before it is transmitted over the packet network.
At the far end of the packet link (the egress), the CES interworking function receives the
incoming packets with the TDM payload, removes the headers, reassembles them in the
correct sequence and releases the reconstructed TDM stream to the TDM user
equipment connected to the CES-based device. CES also provides the ability to deliver
the TDM clock over the packet network along with the TDM circuit to ensure
synchronization of TDM equipment at both ends of the packet link according to
G.823/G.824 jitter/wander standards.
The basic element of CES implementations, the pseudo-wire, functions as a point-topoint connection. CES implementations supporting multiple simultaneous pseudo-wires
can then operate in multipoint (star) and multipoint-to-multipoint (mesh) topologies. CES
sessions are available all the time and in the event of a link failure, are recreated
extremely quickly.
CES over GPON
CES over GPON(CESoGPON) refers to the overlay of TDM services over a GPON. To
understand how CES is used in conjunction with GPON, it is useful to consider a trivial
example of using CES.
For example, Figure 3 shows a T1/E1 running across a standard Ethernet switch
connecting a PBX via standard T1/E1 interfaces to a CES gateway. In turn, the gateway
is connected to the switch over standard CAT5 Ethernet cabling on both sides of the
switch. In this implementation, CES can be used to transport standard telephony across
an Ethernet switch. No special configuration of the network is required, nor is there a
need for any additional gateways. There will also be no degradation in the quality of the
voice experienced by the PBX users.
25
Figure 3 Using CES to transport standard telephony across an Ethernet switch
To create CESoGPON, all an operator needs to do is simply replace the switch with a GPON access
network (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 CESoGPON
The next step is examining how CESoGPON is implemented in a real GPON application.
On the ONT subscriber premises side, CES interworking functionality is integrated inside
the ONT. The CES function directly interfaces with the G.984 MAC in the ONT via a
standard Fast Ethernet or GigE interface.
On the central office side, CES interworking functions can be integrated either within the
OLT, or located externally to the OLT in a separate device. When collocated outside the
OLT, the CES gateway can be connected directly to the OLT if there is a TDM backhaul
link immediately available to the OLT. Alternatively, the CES gateway can be located
remotely from the OLT on the far side of a packet backhaul link such as Metro Ethernet.
If the CES interworking is integrated inside the OLT, it can be added as a pluggable card
that plugs into an Ethernet backplane (see Figure 5).
26
Figure 5 CESoGPON plug-in modules
This integrated CES function in the OLT provides two services in GPON – aggregation
of all the TDM services from the remote ONTs onto an OC-3/STM-1 link, and cross
connect functionality to reduce the number of TDM uplinks to the backhaul.
CES performance is affected directly or indirectly by four main characteristics of the
packet network:
 packet loss
 packet miss-order
 packet delay variation (PDV)
 packet network latency and PDV modulations.
GPON provides an ideal transport medium for CES in that packet loss and packet missorder are either non-existent, or so negligible as to be completely unnoticeable in the
context of CES.
PDV, also known as packet jitter, is a function of the scheduling performance of GPON,
which is under the complete control of the GPON operator. CES is capable of complying
with jitter/wander requirements in ITU-T G.823/G.824 at PDV levels as high as 20 ms.
As a result, even PDVs of a few milliseconds in a GPON is not considered to be
problematic for CES compliance with very strict jitter/wander requirements.
PDV modulations resulting from variations in traffic patterns in the GPON network, for
example due to IP video streaming sessions being created and torn down, may have a
potential effect on the performance of the clock recovery in CES. However, CES
supports two mechanisms for clock recovery. The first is adaptive clock recovery, in
which all the synchronization is based on timing information derived only from the CES
packet stream. The second mechanism, differential timing, uses an out-of-stream clock
source as a reference for clock recovery. In the case of GPON, a very accurate 8kHz
clock source is provided over the GPON, and this can be used by CES to overcome any
potential issues of synchronization in the event of significant PDV modulations.
27
CESoGPON introduces packet headers that consume bandwidth. Depending on the
mode used, and the packet payload size, the bandwidth overhead is at least 4%. CES
also requires a finite time to packetize and reassemble the TDM stream at the ingress
and egress of the packet link. The end-to-end delay (not including the network latency
introduced by GPON) can be reduced below 1 millisecond depending on the
configuration of the CES and the GPON.
CESoGPON has the following key benefits:
 already standardized in IETF, ITU-T, MEF and MPLS Forum
 mature and deployed over other access infrastructures
 support for fractional T1/E1 as well as unstructured TDM services
 support of multi-operator leased line deployment
 reduced complexity and bill of materials in the OLT
 removes dependency on availability of TDM backhaul link for OLT
 scalable aggregation and cross-connect capacity
 enabler of end-to-end network convergence.
As mentioned above, CES was first tested in 1998 and it has been adopted in many
market segments including metro Ethernet, DOCSIS access (HFC) and fixed wireless
access, resulting in a broad based, tried and tested technology that is available now for
GPON operators.
An additional benefit afforded by CESoGPON is its full support of fractional T1/E1
services up to single DS0 granularity. This is in addition to support for unstructured
(clear channel) transport of Nx T1/E1 services where required. Fractional T1/E1 services
comprise the majority of TDM services offered today and form an essential part of a
service offering to commercial users.
Perhaps the most significant benefit of CESoGPON is its cost effectiveness. Eliminating
costly TDM infrastructure simplifies the OLT architecture. Removing complexity drives
down costs and enables fast time-to-market service delivery of TDM services to
business users and non-TDM services to residential and commercial users, the vast
majority of the target market for GPON today. Eliminating the need for a direct TDM link
next to the OLT also has the advantage of broadening the GPON footprint beyond
locations where availability of TDM capacity is available today.
CES also supports delivery of full, and fractional, leased line services from multiple
operators over a single GPON due to the fact that is supports multiple clock domains
and recovery. This provides GPON operators with the option of selling First Mile leased
line infrastructure service to other operators.
Finally, CES is highly scalable and supports aggregation of many TDM bundles ( > 2000
for STM-1) at up to DS0 granularity for rates up to STM-1/OC-3. This enables operators
to easily match the OLT TDM service capacity to the specific requirements of areas in
which either businesses or residences predominate.
The telecommunications industry has invested more than forty years in building high
performance TDM-based infrastructure for the transport of both voice and data
applications. As result, more than $25 billion worth of TDM services are transported
each year over that infrastructure. The gradual replacement of TDM infrastructure with
packet-based infrastructure such as GPON, must support the continued huge demand
28
for TDM services in a cost-effective, flexible way that blends in easily with the hybrid
TDM-Ethernet telecommunication networks that will exist for many years to come.
CESoGPON provides a smooth and fast migration path for operators that are deploying
GPONs to deliver both TDM-based commercial services and IP-based services over
high performance fiber access networks and simultaneously reduce their cost of
deploying the technology.
Bandwidth Demand
Before choosing the delivery platform (BPON, GPON or Active) the network bandwidth
requirements must be determined and from this the network sized. Sizing the
commercial sub-networks has to be done on a business-by-business basis as their
bandwidth needs vary depending upon the services they wish to access. In sizing the
residential network, the average bandwidth per subscriber must be determined. To
make this determination of the services the network will deliver must first be made. On a
residential level the network will be required to support at a minimum:
 IP video (future)
 Broadcast Video
 HDTV
 Interactive remote learning
 Telephony
 Internet
 Interactive gaming
 Automated Meter Reading
Bandwidth requirements can be divided into three main groups: voice, video and data.
These are equivalent to the content to be transported by the network. The vendor
equipment chosen must be able to provision and prioritize the bandwidth delivered to
each subscriber, according to their needs, guaranteeing the QoS level required for each
traffic type.
How much is enough bandwidth?
Today’s Digital Home 43 Mb/s
 1 HDTV = 14 Mb/s
 2 SDTV = 3.5 Mb/s
 1 Internet = 20 Mb/s
 1 phone line = 1Mb/s
Tomorrow’s Digital Home 59.6 Mb/s
 1 VOD / PVR = 14 Mb/s
 2 SDTV = 4 Mb/s
 2 HDTV = 14 Mb/s
 1 TeleWorking (or Learning) = 5 Mb/s
 1 online gaming = 3.0 Mb/s
 1 online shopping & banking = 1.5 Mb/s
 2 phone lines = 128 kb/s
29
Table 1
Service
Required Bandwidth
Collaborative remote studio, video editing
Broadcast quality video per channel
Full motion video conferencing
Lower quality video conferencing
Application hosting/delivery
HDTV per channel
IP Video per channel (compressed)
VoIP POTS (voice telephony) and AMR
Internet
Telemedicine
Interactive remote learning, online university
Interactive Gaming
Business inventory and remote management
Electronic investment and banking
45 Mbps symmetrical
6 Mbps asymmetrical
6 Mbps symmetrical
128 to 512 Kbps symmetrical
128 Kbps per desktop symmetrical
12 Mbps asymmetrical
12 Mbps asymmetrical
64 to 256 Kbps per phone
1.5 Mbps symmetrical
1 to 6 Mbps symmetrical
5 Mbps symmetrical
56 to 128 Kbps
Voice
Voice, or telephony, while requiring the least amount of bandwidth needs the highest
level of QoS. This means that voice takes precedence over all other forms of traffic on
the network. Assuming the average number of telephones per home will be two, 128
Kbps to 512 Kbps will be required for telephony traffic dependent upon the vendor
solution chosen.
Video
In a residential application, video would be the second priority, while in a commercial or
business application it might be third. Whatever its order of delivery, though, the largest
amount of bandwidth on the network will be consumed by video. In the United States, all
television broadcasting was mandated to be digital broadcasting from the current analog
by 2009. Starting in March of 2007, all television sets that are produced are required to
have a built-in HDTV/DTV tuner. The government is also subsidizing the cost of “DTV
Broadcast Convert” boxes for households with standard televisions.7 As of this writing,
the success of the government subsidy converter box program is unknown. Many argue
that remittance of the coupon does not guarantee that the converter boxes will be
properly installed. Therefore, it is recommended that to ensure that no costly upgrades
are required in the near future, the network should be engineered to accommodate
HDTV from day one.
In the United States there is an average of 2.5 to 3 televisions per single-family
residence. For purposes of establishing a high-level network requirement three
televisions per home with one set capable of HDTV should be assumed. Online gaming
and fully interactive distance learning should also be added to the video bandwidth
requirement. This results in a total video bandwidth requirement of approximately 25 to
30 Mbps if all services were to be delivered over Ethernet.
7
HDTV Set to Expand in 2009, HDTV-News, by Kathryn Lang, February 15, 2007
30
The FTTP industry, as a whole, is convinced that the future of video to the subscriber
lies with IP based technologies. As television distribution technology evolves, a point will
be reached where time-dependent broadcast TV (today’s standard network and cable
fare) will be replaced by fully “on-demand TV”. On-demand TV, by definition, means that
people could watch what they want whenever they want it, the only platform currently
able to support it is IP. In comparison to all the other video delivery mechanisms
currently available or on the horizon, only IP video distribution technology offers
sufficient advantages to both consumers and service providers.
If an IP video provider is not available (market research has shown that while IP video is
technically feasible, but it will be at least 5 years before IPTV is as robust and feature
rich as traditional cable TV using quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). This does
not however obviate the overall bandwidth requirements of the network.
Data
In residential applications, data receives the lowest QoS priority of the three traffic types.
Conversely, this is likely not true of commercial applications where data may be the
lifeblood of the business. At the residential level, data traffic will consist primarily of
Internet and AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) access. For Internet access, 2 Mbps of
bandwidth should be allocated while AMR will require 128 Kbps per end user; data
requirements total 2 to 2.25 Mbps average per residence. Business applications,
however, will be scalable to the specific demand. Varying degrees of security and
dedicated bandwidth/reliability will correspond to each customer’s specific requirements.
Bandwidth Summation
There are currently 6,500 residential housing units and 86 businesses within Pelican
Bay’s territory8. Based on the bandwidth figures derived above the maximum sustained
bandwidth requirement per home is approximately between 20 to 30 Mbps. While some
households will exceed this figure, others will not reach it. This figure serves as an
average benchmark by which vendor equipment solutions can be evaluated. This
should be the determining factor the OAN network bandwidth requirement for Pelican
Bay.
Initially, individual residential subscribers will not require more than 50 Mbps of
bandwidth, particularly if the RF video platform is chosen. However, this need is
expected to rise dramatically once the residents of Pelican Bay begin to make use of the
services that are to be made available over their fiber network. To avoid costly and
disruptive future upgrades in outside and inside plant, the bandwidth requirement figure
of 45 Mbps per subscriber should be considered for evaluating, comparing and
contrasting the various vendors network architectures that could be selected to meet that
level of demand. Further, the product selected must have the capability of scaling at
least an order of magnitude without fork lifting the majority of the hardware.
Fiber Topologies
All outside plant deployments of FTTP share some common attributes, with only minor
product specific variations on a theme (even for “active” versus passive” technologies).
When viewed from a high level (or alternatively, when view from the street), there is a
common physical, three tier architecture for deploying fiber to the home. Coming out of
8
Pelican Bay CDP, Florida, U.S. Census Bureau, January 2012.
31
the central office there will generally
be a few large cable assemblies
(minimum being one), the feeder
cables that will contain all of the fibers
that have been consolidated to serve
multiple hundreds to thousands of
subscribers. These cables will serve
“LCPs”, or Local Convergence Points
(passive fiber distribution hubs that
usually placed in a “daisy-chain”
fashion).
These fiber hubs are
enclosures that support multiple
distribution cables and serve between
a few dozen to several hundred
subscribers.
LCP is a generic
architectural name. The physical implementation could range from an aerial, strand
mounted splice case to a buried hand hole with enclosure to a pad mounted cabinet.
The LCP may include only splices from the feeder cable to the distribution cable, passive
optical splitters or active components.
Coming out of the LCPs, the distribution cables will serve multiple fiber drop terminals
that are factory terminated and ready for installation. These terminals are engineered
back to and aggregation splice point to take advantage of larger fiber cable counts which
reduce the number of fiber sheaths construction personnel have to work with. Each
terminal Network Access Point (NAP) will serve from one to twelve subscribers via drop
cables, the third leg of the three-tier architecture. A NAP is typically a splice case that
would either be aerial mounted or placed in a grade level hand-hole. Just like the LCP,
the NAP may be used to enclose splices from the distribution cable to the crop cable or it
may contain passive optical splitters that will consolidate multiple subscribers onto a
single fiber. In aerial applications the NAP would typically serve up to four subscribers.
In buried applications the NAP is usually planned to support from two, four, six or eight
subscribers.
The primary fiber topologies can be categorized into 3 types; Ring, Bus and Tree.
Ring
The ring topology is primarily used where path protection is an end-user network
requirement. As in the case of networks based on SONET technologies, a ring topology
provides for redundant service delivery via diversely routed fiber paths and paired
transmission capabilities at the network core (refer to Figure 9). This topology type is
primarily used for Long Haul and Metro applications where, due to high-sustained
bandwidth requirements, network survivability is a primary requirement.
32
User 3
User 4
Optical
Signal
Source
User 2
User 1
Figure 9
Bus
The bus topology consists of direct linear signal feeds to each subtended subscriber on
the network (refer to Figure 10). This topology is used in situations where the existing
fiber routes and geographical considerations dictate its use.
User 3
User 1
Optical
Signal
Source
User 2
User 4
Figure 10
Tree
The tree topology is essentially a linear network feed from OLT to splitter to the
subtended ONTs (refer to Figure 11). The tree allows maximum efficiency in fiber usage
and deployment as well as maximum usage of the minimum amount of deployed
equipment. It also allows for path redundancy where required through the use of
additional splitters, paired OLTs and diversely routed fiber.
33
User 1
User 2
Optical
Signal
Source
Splitter
User 3
User 4
Figure 11
The designer to optimally place the optical splitters may use the penetration rates
derived from the marketing survey. Based on this research the distribution of the splitter
combiners can be advantageously placed so as to guarantee a minimal amount of
stranded fiber. With thoughtful design, the PONs can be populated efficiently during the
initial deployment stages. More importantly the PONs can be further populated on as
required basis during subsequent phases of network build. From a network perspective,
one can equate an OLT, or PON termination interface, to a 32 port Ethernet switch.
A properly designed tree topology increases the longevity of the optical plant. For
example; assume the 1:4 splitter a 1:2, and the four 1:8’s will become two 1:16’s.
Locate the 1:2 splitter in the CO. Then locate the 1:16 splitters in Aerial or Drop
enclosures in the field (refer to Figure 12).
34
PON Configuration
1:16 A
User 1
ONU 2
User 2
ONU 16
User 16
ONU 17
User 17
ONU 18
User 18
ONU 32
User 32
Field
Splitters
1:2
OLT 1
ONU 1
CO
Splitter
1:16 B
Figure 12
When the PON’s designed maximum bandwidth usage is exceeded leg 1:16 B, the CO
splitter is removed, and a second OLT is added at the CO (refer to Figure 13). The
bandwidth to all subscribers is effectively doubled, with no forklift upgrade.
PON Reconfiguration
OLT 1
1:16 A
Field
Splitter
OLT 2
Added
1:16 B
ONU 1
User 1
ONU 2
User 2
ONU 16
User 16
ONU 17
User 17
ONU 18
User 18
ONU 32
User 32
Figure 13
There are five major advantages to the tree having local convergence at the substations:
35
1. The field splitters served by a particular CO splitter need not be in close
geographical proximity to each other. This allows a great deal of flexibility when
configuring the PON design.
2. Bandwidth usage can be balanced at the CO by simple redistribution of the
interconnects between the legs of the CO splitters and the incoming fiber feed of
the field splitters.
3. If the bandwidth demands on any PON increase beyond the design criteria,
bandwidth to any PON can be increased by removal of the CO splitter and the
installation of an additional OLT (as shown in figure 5). This allows the network
to effectively double the bandwidth to all end-users on a PON with no
changes/additions to the OSP design or fiber counts and minimal disruption to
the end-users on the PON.
4. If over time, bandwidth usage on a given PON remains significantly lower than
the design specification, subscribers can be added to the PON (up to a limit
determined by the specific network design criteria) or PONs may be aggregated
as long as the total ONT count does not exceed the design limit.
5. Additional fiber, no matter what the topology, must be held in reserve for
maintenance purposes and future growth of the network. The Tree topology
allows a higher degree of flexibility in managing the growth of the network.
The Bus topology increases the cost of a network beyond the just the cost of the added
fiber required per cable. There is a significant increase in the amount of splicing
required. With splicing costs normally running around 20 dollars per splice, a homerun
topology (as regards OSP) is usually significantly more expensive. It should be noted
that much of the cost associated with splicing is actually cable preparation. The cost of
additional splices at a given location should be less than the $20 average.
It is recommended that for residential applications, an FTTP network base itself primarily
on the Tree topology. FTTB design considerations for large bandwidth or high resiliency
users may require a Bus approach. However, these should be considered on a case-bycase basis with any additional cost beyond the efficient tree configuration being born by
the user. Beyond a design average, residential applications do not tend to change
dramatically as regards bandwidth requirements.
Bandwidth requirements for
businesses on the other hand vary with time as they expand and contract dependant on
vagaries in the economy or other outside factors. Therefore, the network solution
chosen by the Pelican Bay must be capable of delivering services over primarily Tree
and some Bus topology.
Given the relatively high cost of electronics and the low cost of fiber and labor today,
Spectrum recommends working with the selected vendor to select the specific
implementation of the outside plant that will yield the optimal results given the nature of
the Pelican Bay project and the specific attributes of the product.
36
Appendix 7 – Project Schedule
Appendix 7 – Project Schedule
Pelican Bay
Appendix 7 - Project Schedule
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Jun
1
Qtr 3, 2012
Jul
Aug
Sep
Qtr 4, 2012
Oct
Nov
Dec
Qtr 1, 2013
Jan
Feb
Qtr 2, 2013
Apr
Mar
May
Jun
Qtr 3, 2013
Jul
Aug
Sep
Qtr 4, 2013
Oct
Nov
Dec
Qtr 1, 2014
Jan
2
PBF
3
PBF Decision Point - Interest in Project
10 days
Fri 6/29/12
4
Legal and regulatory review
35 days
Mon 7/16/12
5
Community Survey
60 days
Mon 7/16/12
6
Preliminary Engineering Design
10 days
Fri 8/10/12
7
Site Survey & Walkout
20 days
Tue 9/11/12
8
Revise Construction Cost Estimate
5 days
Tue 10/9/12
Engineer
9
PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue
10 days
Tue 10/16/12
PBF
10
Determine Electronics Technology
10 days
Tue 10/30/12
11
Complete Detailed Design
95 days
Tue 11/13/12
12
Infrastructure Plans
75 days
Tue 11/13/12
13
Construction Specifications
10 days
Tue 2/26/13
14
Service Standards & Specs.
15 days
Tue 2/26/13
15
Electronics Specifications
10 days
Tue 3/12/13
25 days
Tue 3/19/13
16
Develop RFPs
17
Construction RFP
5 days
Tue 3/19/13
18
Electronics RFP
5 days
Tue 3/26/13
19
Content RFP
5 days
Tue 4/2/13
20
Customer Service & Maintenance RFP
10 days
Tue 4/9/13
21
Receive Quotes
15 days
Tue 4/23/13
22
14 days
Tue 5/14/13
23
Refine Business Plan
10 days
Mon 6/3/13
24
15 days
Mon 6/17/13
25
Award Construction
1 day?
Mon 7/8/13
26
Construction
280 days
Tue 8/6/13
27
Develop Implementation Plan
220 days
Tue 10/29/13
28
Construct Head End
60 days
Tue 6/17/14
29
Implement Electronics
20 days
Tue 9/16/14
30
Internet Connection Turn-up
45 days
Tue 8/12/14
31
Implement Testbed Customer Base
20 days
Tue 10/28/14
32
Audit and Adjust
60 days
Tue 11/25/14
33
Full Implementation
60 days
Tue 2/17/15
34
Rollout Complete
0 days
Mon 5/11/15
Project: Pelican Bay
Date: Wed 6/27/12
Legal
PBF
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer,PBF
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
PBF
Engineer
PBF
PBF
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
1
Deadline
Gantt Chart
Pelican Bay
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Feb
1
Mar
Qtr 2, 2014
Apr
May
Jun
Qtr 3, 2014
Jul
Aug
Sep
Qtr 4, 2014
Oct
Nov
Qtr 1, 2015
Jan
Dec
Feb
Mar
Qtr 2, 2015
Apr
May
Jun
Qtr 3, 2015
Jul
Aug
Sep
2
3
PBF Decision Point - Interest in Project
10 days
Fri 6/29/12
4
35 days
Mon 7/16/12
5
Community Survey
60 days
Mon 7/16/12
6
Preliminary Engineering Design
10 days
Fri 8/10/12
7
20 days
Tue 9/11/12
8
Revise Construction Cost Estimate
5 days
Tue 10/9/12
9
10 days
Tue 10/16/12
10
Determine Electronics Technology
10 days
Tue 10/30/12
11
95 days
Tue 11/13/12
12
75 days
Tue 11/13/12
13
Construction Specifications
10 days
Tue 2/26/13
14
Service Standards & Specs.
15 days
Tue 2/26/13
15
10 days
Tue 3/12/13
25 days
Tue 3/19/13
16
Develop RFPs
17
Construction RFP
5 days
Tue 3/19/13
18
Electronics RFP
5 days
Tue 3/26/13
19
Content RFP
5 days
Tue 4/2/13
20
Customer Service & Maintenance RFP
10 days
Tue 4/9/13
21
Receive Quotes
15 days
Tue 4/23/13
22
14 days
Tue 5/14/13
23
10 days
Mon 6/3/13
24
15 days
Mon 6/17/13
25
Award Construction
1 day?
Mon 7/8/13
26
Construction
280 days
Tue 8/6/13
27
Develop Implementation Plan
220 days
Tue 10/29/13
28
Construct Head End
60 days
Tue 6/17/14
29
20 days
Tue 9/16/14
Contractor,Engineer
30
Internet Connection Turn-up
45 days
Tue 8/12/14
Service Provider,Engineer
31
Implement Testbed Customer Base
20 days
Tue 10/28/14
32
Audit and Adjust
60 days
Tue 11/25/14
33
Full Implementation
60 days
Tue 2/17/15
34
Rollout Complete
0 days
Mon 5/11/15
Date: Wed 6/27/12
Contractor
PBF,Service Provider,Engineer
Contractor
Contractor,Service Provider,PBF
Contractor,Service Provider,PBF,Engineer
Contractor,Service Provider,PBF,Engineer
5/11
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
2
Deadline
Gantt Chart
Pelican Bay
PBF Decision Point - Intere
Start: 6/29/12
ID: 3
Start: 7/16/12
ID: 4
Finish: 7/12/12
Dur: 10 days
Finish: 8/31/12
Dur: 35 days
Res:
PBF
Res:
Legal
Community Survey
Start: 7/16/12
ID: 5
Finish: 10/5/12
Dur: 60 days
Res:
PBF
Preliminary Engineering De
Revise Construction Cost E
PBF Decision Point - Abort
Determine Electronics Tec
Construction Specification
Start: 8/10/12
ID: 6
Start: 9/11/12
ID: 7
Start: 10/9/12
Start: 10/16/12 ID: 9
Start: 10/30/12 ID: 10
Start: 11/13/12 ID: 11
Start: 11/13/12 ID: 12
Start: 2/26/13
ID: 13
Start: 3/12/13
ID: 15
Finish: 8/23/12
Dur: 10 days
Finish: 10/8/12
Dur: 20 days
Finish: 10/15/12 Dur: 5 days
Finish: 3/25/13
Finish: 2/25/13
Finish: 3/11/13
Dur: 10 days
Finish: 3/25/13
Dur: 10 days
Res:
Res:
Res:
Comp: 0%
Res:
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
ID: 8
Engineer
PBF
Engineer, PBF
Dur: 95 days
Res:
Dur: 75 days
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
Develop RFPs
Construction RFP
Start: 3/19/13
ID: 16
Start: 3/19/13
ID: 17
Finish: 4/22/13
Dur: 25 days
Finish: 3/25/13
Dur: 5 days
Comp: 0%
Res:
Engineer
Service Standards & Specs
Start: 2/26/13
ID: 14
Finish: 3/18/13
Dur: 15 days
Res:
Date: Wed 6/27/12
Critical
Noncritical
Critical Milestone
Milestone
Critical Summary
Summary
Critical Inserted
Inserted
Critical Marked
1
Marked
Critical External
Engineer
External
Project Summary
Highlighted Critical
Highlighted Noncritical
PERT / CPM
Pelican Bay
Electronics RFP
Content RFP
Customer Service & Mainte
Receive Quotes
Award Construction
Construction
Construct Head End
Start: 3/26/13
ID: 18
Start: 4/2/13
ID: 19
Start: 4/9/13
ID: 20
Start: 4/23/13
ID: 21
Start: 5/14/13
ID: 22
Start: 6/3/13
ID: 23
Start: 6/17/13
ID: 24
Start: 7/8/13
ID: 25
Start: 8/6/13
ID: 26
Start: 6/17/14
ID: 28
Start: 9/16/14
Finish: 4/1/13
Dur: 5 days
Finish: 4/8/13
Dur: 5 days
Finish: 4/22/13
Dur: 10 days
Finish: 5/13/13
Dur: 15 days
Finish: 5/31/13
Dur: 14 days
Finish: 6/14/13
Dur: 10 days
Finish: 7/5/13
Dur: 15 days
Finish: 7/8/13
Dur: 1 day?
Finish: 9/1/14
Dur: 280 days
Finish: 9/8/14
Dur: 60 days
Res:
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
Res:
Engineer
Res:
PBF
Res:
Engineer
Res:
PBF
Res:
PBF
Res:
Contractor
Res:
Contractor
Res:
ID: 29
Contractor, Engineer
Develop Implementation Pl
Start: 10/29/13 ID: 27
Finish: 9/1/14
Res:
Date: Wed 6/27/12
Critical
Noncritical
Critical Milestone
Milestone
Critical Summary
Summary
Critical Inserted
Inserted
Critical Marked
2
Marked
Critical External
External
Dur: 220 days
PBF, Service Provider, Engine
Project Summary
PERT / CPM
Pelican Bay
Internet Connection Turn-u
Implement Testbed Custom
Start: 8/12/14
Audit and Adjust
Full Implementation
Start: 10/28/14 ID: 31
Start: 11/25/14 ID: 32
Start: 2/17/15
ID: 33
Finish: 2/16/15
Finish: 5/11/15
Dur: 60 days
Res:
Res:
Res:
ID: 30
Service Provider, Engineer
Date: Wed 6/27/12
Critical
Contractor, Service Provider,
Noncritical
Dur: 60 days
Critical Milestone
Res:
Milestone
Rollout Complete
Milestone Date: Mon 5/11/15
ID: 34
Critical Summary
Summary
Critical Inserted
Inserted
Critical Marked
3
Marked
Critical External
External
Project Summary
PERT / CPM

Strategic Analysis of Community Broadband Offering for Pelican Bay

Transcription

Similar documents

sheriff`s activity report, page 9 classifieds, page 12

Our 2016 Media Kit

Annual Report 2011 - Family Services of Northeast Wisconsin

Check out the latest Midlands Quarterly Newsletter

Spring Number

sample report

PB POST 32008m.pmd

NEWSLETTER - The Mediterranean Society of America

CCTV Cabling Considerations - Berk-Tek

The HBHS Record - Herne Bay High School

Total Brochure（PDF 15780KB）