Regional Infrastructure Initiative
SURA
Phase II – Potential Partners Report
Prepared for
Southeastern Universities Research Association
(SURA)
Prepared by
Geographic Network Affiliates International, Inc.
and
Matrix Design Group
July 17, 2001
Phase II – Potential Partners Report
for
Southeastern Universities Research Association
SURA
Fiber Optic Regional Infrastructure Initiative
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. SURA Regional Infrastructure Initiative Background
3. Statement of Work
4. Project Implementation Efforts Under Phase II
5.1 Project Workshop
5.2 Partner Package
5.3 Potential Partner Interviews
5.4 Information Deficiency from Potential Partners
5. Executive Summary on Potential Partners
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Work Activity Bar
5.3 Potential Partner Contact Information
5.4 Potential Partner Synopsis
5.5 Contact Categories
6. Rating System of Potential Partners
7. Final Recommendation of Top Potential Partners
8. Typical Network Specifications
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Equipment
8.3 Testing Procedures
9. Conclusions
Supplementals
I. Alphabetized listing of all potential partners:
 Corporate information
 Contact information
 Network information
II. Interviews documentation:
 Telephone interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
 Face-to-face interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
 Follow-up interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
3
1. Introduction
The Southeastern Universities Research Association’s (hereinafter “SURA”) Regional
Infrastructure Initiative (hereinafter “The SURA RII”) is a collaborative venture between the 53
SURA member research universities from 16 south and southeastern states and the District of
Columbia. Over 15 existing access points (hereinafter “Access Points”) to various Giga-POP
(hereinafter “Giga-POP”) locations are currently providing some level of aggregated network
services to the SURA member institutions and will be core components of the SURA RII.
With the SURA RII, SURA is attempting to create a set of collaborative partnerships that could
allow the SURA membership to have access to a regional fiber optic infrastructure capable of
meeting their capacity and functionality needs for the next 10 to 15 years. A network built with
access to an underlying fiber optic infrastructure provides many advantages over a network
provisioned using typical leased circuits and services. Some of those advantages include:





The ability to isolate network communities using wave division multiplexing
technologies (network research, research applications, and access to the commercial
Internet could all travel over the same physical fiber network);
The ability to develop services and include communities of users without the limitations
of externally imposed Appropriate Use Policies (AUPs);
The ability to swap unused capacity in areas where the community owns infrastructure
for capacity in areas where connectivity is needed but do not own capacity;
The ability to partner with equipment manufacturers to deploy future advanced network
technologies well in advance of their commercial availability; and
The ability to advance the regional infrastructure over time as the community’s
requirements evolve.
Geographic Network Affiliates International, Inc. and Matrix Design Group (hereinafter “GeoMatrix”) have united to form an alliance of experienced telecommunication experts
knowledgeable in the design and management of creative network infrastructure solutions such
as those being sought by SURA.
The SURA members, non-SURA I-2 members, the Giga-POPs and other selected entities (such
as Jlab) are referred to as the “primary” locations considered within this phase for connectivity,
while all other locations or future considerations, such as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Native American campuses
collectively referred to as “secondary” locations that may also be advantaged through this
project.
Phase I, submitted on December 14, 2000, addressed and discussed many goals, issues and
challenges associated with the SURA RII through the development of a set of network maps
relative to the physical connectivity between, and the geographic location of each of, the
colleges, universities and other academic entities included in the SURA RII. These high-level
network maps provided Geo-Matrix with the ability to engage in discussions with potential fiber
and infrastructure or facility providers to investigate partnering opportunities that will be the
focus of Phase II.
4
2. SURA Regional Infrastructure Initiative Background
SURA was established in 1980 as a non-stock, non-profit corporation. SURA serves as an entity
through which colleges, universities and other organizations may cooperate with one another and
with government in acquiring, developing and using laboratories and other research facilities in
furthering knowledge and the application of that knowledge in the physical, biological and other
natural sciences and engineering. SURA’s goals are to foster excellence in scientific research, to
strengthen the scientific and technical capabilities of the nation and of the Southeast, and to
provide outstanding training opportunities for the next generation of scientists and engineers.
As the number of network based collaborations and regional network services supported by
SURA and its members continue to grow, the need to find more economical methods to
interconnect member institutions will also grow. This need is magnified by the desire to provide
advanced network services to the broader education community within the SURA region. While
providing individual advanced network services to SURA members in large metropolitan areas
may be economically possible, extending this connectivity to secondary and tertiary urban and
rural areas will continue to be difficult. Through the SURA RII region-wide collaborative
project, it is envisioned that SURA will be able to leverage their collective membership
requirements and buying power to dramatically reduce and alter the cost of advanced network
connectivity within the south and southeast regions of the U.S. and perhaps nationwide.
New players in the SURA region’s wide area transport services market may make it
economically attractive to consider creating a SURA owned dark fiber or dedicated wavelength
infrastructure in major portions of the SURA region. Given the high costs that SURA members
are currently paying for interconnection to multiple sites, an infrastructure investment of this
type could have a relatively short break-even period. As part of this SURA initiative, a detailed
analysis of these opportunities, and when and under what methods such break-even event points
can be achieved, is part of the Phase IV portion of work envisioned by Geo-Matrix. To this end,
SURA is undertaking this Regional Infrastructure Initiative.
5
3. Statement of Work
The intention of Phase II is to develop a clear plan for identifying potential primary and
secondary providers and/or partners for each segment of the SURA regional infrastructure.
Utilizing the hypothetical regional network plan developed in Phase I, Geo-Matrix with the aid
of SURA will identify potential partners that could provision all or part of the physical network
transport required to provide the connectivity described in Phase I.
Geo-Matrix will develop thorough evaluations and comparisons of potential partners to meet the
goals and objectives of the SURA regional infrastructure initiative. Geo-Matrix will also
evaluate and/or give an opinion on corporate structure and operations, stability, experience,
business strategies, research and development (R&D), terms and flexibility in negotiations.
Geo-Matrix will report to SURA the following information for each potential partner under
consideration for the SURA initiative:



Who the potential partners are
What their contributions might be to the SURA initiative
What some of their past, present and future goals are
Geo-Matrix will develop a strategy for approaching potential partners who might have the
physical assets required to create a SURA regional network infrastructure. Based on
recommendations made by Geo-Matrix and accepted by SURA, Geo-Matrix, in conjunction with
SURA when desired, will contact and begin preliminary investigations, through interviews, to
determine the willingness of potential partners to become involved in the SURA initiative.
An investigation of the list of potential partners yielded many more companies than had
originally been anticipated. As such, the statement of work was adjusted to accommodate the
increased number of contacts for Phase II. SURA expressed a willingness to make contact with
more potential partners in hopes of determining the best network possible across the entire
SURA region from a greater pool of potential network vendors. SURA acknowledged that the
increased number of contacts and subsequent documentation of meetings could not fall within
the original statement of work, therefore, the statement of work was modified to make contact
with all companies identified and document as much information as possible with only one faceto-face meeting.
6
4. Project Implementation Efforts Under Phase II
4.1 Project Workshops
The Geo-Matrix team commenced Phase II of the SURA initiative in a fashion similar to Phase I.
A workshop was conducted with a gathering of the key personnel from Geo-Matrix present.
During the first workshop meeting, the Scope of Services and the Statement of Work for Phase II
were revisited and reviewed to reinforce each member’s understanding of the final product and
the steps necessary to attain project goals. The Geo-Matrix team allocated project assignments
to key personnel based on the individual’s specialization and experience.
As part of the workshop meeting, the Geo-Matrix team discussed the deliverable requirements of
Phase II and generated a list of essential data requirements for SURA to collect and furnish to
Geo-Matrix. The initial listing of data collection items provided to SURA was not intended to be
an all-inclusive list but a working and evolving document of items anticipated throughout Phase
II and subsequent phases of the project. The data collection requirements for Phase II were
deemed critical by Geo-Matrix during the interaction with potential partners through telephone,
face-to-face and follow-up interviews. Also during these meetings, Geo-Matrix brainstormed
and identified a detailed listing of potential partners as possible candidates for the SURA
initiative. The potential partner list grew from the original anticipated 30 entities to be contacted
over the course of Phase II to a list of 138. The list was divided into the following categories:






Telecommunication, CATV and Construction Companies
Electrical Power Utilities and Authorities
Oil and Gas Pipeline Companies
Railroads
State Governments
Equipment Vendors
After identifying a list of 138 potential partners for Phase II, Geo-Matrix assigned contact
responsibilities to each member of the project team. The assignments were determined based on
experiences with each company and knowledge of their networks and operations.
On February 19-21, 2001, Geo-Matrix attended the Broadband Pricing meeting in Arizona. The
meeting provided Geo-Matrix with an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the
educational community’s involvement in fiber optic technologies.
On February 28, March 2, and March 9, 2001 follow-up workshops with SURA and SURA
member representatives were conducted in Atlanta, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C.
respectively to discuss the data collection requirements, review the list of potential partners and
review the statement of work for Phase II in relation to the increased number of potential
partners determined during the initial workshop meetings.
At about the time the aforementioned workshops were taking place, Geo-Matrix developed a list
of pertinent data requirements for Phase II, which was later reviewed by SURA. The data list
was revised and modified into a survey document for distribution to each SURA member
7
institution and gigapop location. The data was compiled into two databases (institutional and
gigapop) by SURA and updated regularly as more surveys were received. The data was
invaluable in discussions with potential partners with respect to gigapop location, member
requirements, and additional partners for contact consideration
After reviewing the completed potential partner list, Geo-Matrix determined that 19 companies
needed to be removed immediately for one of the following reasons:




The company was not in the fiber business.
The company was bankrupt and liquidating assets.
The company was a subsidiary of another larger fiber company.
The company no longer existed.
For the remaining 119 potential partners, the following contact information was also determined
for each potential partner during the Geo-Matrix workshops:






Company name
Company address (street, city, state and zip-code)
Company Internet address
Contact name
Contact telephone number
Contact email address
On April 24, 2001 SURA conducted an Architectural Working Group meeting in Washington,
D.C. Geo-Matrix took part in discussions concerning the network architectural of the proposed
SURA regional network infrastructure.
On April 26, 2001 SURA conducted a Vendor Workshop meeting to North Carolina in which
Geo-Matrix invited potential partners to attend to discuss the SURA initiative. The invitation list
included both potential partners that Geo-Matrix had already met with as well as those it had not
yet met with. This workshop came about as a result of Geo-Matrix’s experiences to-date with
potential partners at the initial face-to-face meetings. Because of the agreed upon limitation of
one face-to-face meeting with each potential partner deemed viable, when having said meetings
it quickly became apparent that:
1. Potential partners had a strong desire to hear about the initiative directly from SURA,
2. Potential partners were not going to release the kind of detailed information desired by
SURA under Phase II unless and until they could meet with SURA to garner additional
information for themselves, and
3. A second face-to-face meeting was needed and yet it was agreed that such a meeting was
not to be a part of Phase II.
Thus, in an effort to meet the above listed three needs of potential partners, while, at the same
time, respecting the Statement of Work and time schedule limitations of Phase II, it was deemed
prudent that Geo-Matrix (under Phase II) help SURA develop and undertake a one-day Vendor
8
Workshop meeting. This meeting was a huge success, with approximately 35 different vendors
(i.e. “potential partners”) in attendance.
By inviting all potential partners to meet together with SURA to all hear the same message and
answer the potential partner’s questions, SURA eliminated the substantial time and travel
expense it would have had to otherwise incur in required second-time face-to-face meetings with
potential partners. Additionally, in conjunction with this meeting, Geo-Matrix saved SURA
considerable travel expenses by taking advantage of the Vendor Workshop meeting in order to
engage in several first-time face-to-face interviews with potential partners.
Weekly project status conference calls between the Geo-Matrix Team and the SURA Geo-Matrix
Oversight Team provided project participants the opportunity to review the status of the project;
discuss data collection requirements; review, amend and define the Statement of Work items and
continue to improve Geo-Matrix’s understanding of the SURA community and the intent of the
SURA RII.
4.2 Partner Package
Following the development of the potential partner list with contact information and the
development of data requirements for Phase II, Geo-Matrix developed a partner package that was
distributed to each of the remaining 119 potential partners after review and approval by SURA.
The partner package consisted of an opportunity letter, SURA initiative press release, and six
maps. The six maps included:






Hypothetical Network (for entire SURA footprint)
Location of Member and Non-member Universities (for entire SURA footprint)
Access Location (for entire SURA footprint)
SURA Region 1 (regionalized)
SURA Region 2 (regionalized)
SURA Region 3 (regionalized)
4.3 Potential Partner Interviews
The partner packages were distributed to each potential partner and follow-up telephone calls
made and interviews set up and were conducted with those potential partners showing a
willingness to engage in conversations concerning their willingness and ability to provide SURA
with unique network solutions. The interviewing process for each potential partner was broken
down into four categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Follow-up telephone call
Telephone interview
Face-to-face interview
Follow-up interview
Geo-Matrix contacted all potential partners on the list (excluding those companies eliminated)
and setup interviews or removed the potential partner from the list if the potential partner
9
indicated they were not willing to participate, were no longer in business, had merged with
another fiber company or were not in the fiber business. The Geo-Matrix representative
responsible for each potential partner made the initial telephone contact as a follow-up to the
distribution of the partner package. The Geo-Matrix representative then established a convenient
time with the potential partner in which to conduct a telephone interview. During the telephone
interview, it was the discretion of the interviewer that determined the willingness of a potential
partner’s involvement in the SURA initiative and subsequently the detail of information that
would be received from the potential partner.
If, as a result of the telephone interview, a potential partner expressed interest in further dialog
with Geo-Matrix because of their interest in the SURA initiative and their ability to provide
unique network solutions for SURA, a face-to-face interview was scheduled between the
company contact and the Geo-Matrix representative and travel arrangements were made. All
travel received prior approval from SURA.
After the face-to-face interview, the information provided by the potential partner was reviewed
by the Geo-Matrix team and distributed to SURA for review and comment. In some instances,
the face-to-face interview yielded an opportunity that Geo-Matrix deemed needed immediate
action. These opportunities were afforded a follow-up interview (over the telephone) to discuss
the SURA initiative in more detail and review the benefits to both SURA and the potential
partner.
During all these interviews, Geo-Matrix representatives had interview documents to complete.
These forms were developed by Geo-Matrix prior to the commencement of any interviews and
reviewed by SURA. In the event a face-to-face interview was conducted, no telephone interview
reports were deemed necessary by Geo-Matrix.
4.4 Information Deficiency from Potential Partners
The original Statement of Work for Phase II included tasks for Geo-Matrix to perform that were
considered possible within the scope of contacting 30 potential partners for the SURA initiative.
Unfortunately, the potential partner list expanded to include 138 entities. The original scope
included the following tasks:








General terms and conditions
Dark and lit fiber pricing
Length or term of agreement
Terms of renewal
Approximate time for contract negotiations
Approximate time for fiber delivery
Maintenance standards and unit and recurring and pass-through costs for operation and
maintenance
Local and state government regulatory or otherwise requirements
During discussions with SURA, Geo-Matrix outlined the advantages to SURA resulting from the
expanded potential partners list, but also indicated the disadvantages resulting from the addition
10
contacts. As a result, SURA expressed a desire to engage in more contacts with potential
partners and limiting the expected face-to-face interviews to only one visit, therefore, effectively
reducing the level of completion under the original Statement of Work for Phase II. This
information deficiency during the interviewing process has allowed Geo-Matrix to contact more
potential partners and determine more network solutions and opportunities for SURA to review
and consider.
Geo-Matrix determined during the telephone interview process and subsequently confirmed this
during face-to-face interviews that many potential partners were hesitant to advance into
discussions concerning negotiations. The initial contacts made with potential partners were
centered primarily on gaining an understanding of the SURA initiative and a rather general factfinding mission. As a result, some of the tasks under the Statement of Work for Phase II
(essentially those listed above) were not documented under Phase II discussions with potential
partners. Furthermore, in some cases, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were requested from
Geo-Matrix and SURA before such discussions were deemed possible.
Geo-Matrix was able to document the following during the two types of interview processes:

Telephone Interview
o Confirmation of receipt of partner package
o Introductory discussion of the SURA initiative
o Discussion of SURA website and location of SURA initiative information
o Discussion of benefits to potential partner
o Discussion of potential partner contribution to the success of the SURA initiative
o Discussion of expression of interest
o Discussion of willingness to partner
o Recommendation of further discussions or not

Face-to-Face Interview
o Reiteration of SURA initiative, partner benefits and possible partner contributions
o Continued discussions of expression of interest
o Discussion of corporate profile (corporate marketing materials)
o Discussion of existing physical network and attributes (network mapping)
o Discussion of expected next steps for partnering
o Discussion of recommended next steps by Geo-Matrix
o Interviewer’s evaluation
o Discussion of meeting with SURA
11
5. Executive Summaries on Potential Partners
5.1 Introduction
The following executive summaries were compiled by Geo-Matrix for each potential partner
contacted throughout Phase II. Where possible, these executive summaries include the
information listed below.
5.2 Work Activity Bar
The level of success for each potential partner investigation is summarized in a Work Activity
Bar as shown below.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


Each category that was completed by the interviewer for Phase II was indicated with a check
mark. Categories without a check mark indicated that no action or information pertaining to that
category was available or completed by the interviewer.
5.3 Potential Partner Contact Information
The following potential partner contact information is also provided.







Address
Telephone Number
Fax Number (when available)
Contact Person
Title
E-mail Address
Internet Address
5.4 Potential Partner Synopsis
A brief synopsis for each potential partner is provided and, to the extent allowed under any NonDisclosure Agreement (“NDA”) restriction, includes, at a minimum, the following:





What the partner’s past, present and future business goals are.
Network information – regional (entire footprint), sub-regional (state) or local
(universities) (to be discussed further in Phase III).
Locations of opportunities (if available).
Locations of existing and proposed dark fiber routes (if available) (to be discussed further
in Phase III).
Partnering opportunities (to be discussed further in Phase III).
12
5.5 Contact Categories
The listing of potential partners has been divided into the following categories based on each
industry sector they typical belong to:






Telecommunication, CATV and Construction Companies
Electrical Power Utilities and Authorities
Oil and Gas Pipeline Companies
Railroads
State Governments
Equipment Vendors
The category assumptions made by Geo-Matrix are subjective and were solely determined by
Geo-Matrix personnel during workshop brainstorming sessions.
13
Telecommunication, CATV and Construction Companies
ACSI Network Technologies (e.spire)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



2500 North Winds Parkway, Suite 425
Alpharetta, GA 30004
(678) 366-0087
(678) 366-0411
Phillip Hanson
Director of Sales
phillip.hanson@acsint.net
www.acsint.net
Synopsis
ACSI Network Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of e.spire Communications, Inc.,
provides optical fiber infrastructure solutions and strategic network design services for
organizations deploying networks in major metropolitan cities throughout the United States.
Geo-Matrix has been unsuccessful in attempting to complete the Non-Disclosure Agreement
(“NDA”) between Geo-Matrix and ACSI. This action, combined with a lack of telephone
response, no press release updates on their web site since October 4, 2000, their failure to attend
the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001 and their reputed financial
difficulties due to general market conditions, lead us to believe that the interest level in the
SURA initiative is not at a level that would justify continuing attempted talks or meetings.
14
Adelphia
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


121 Champion Way
Canonsburg, PA 15317-5817
(814) 274-9830
Jeff Miller
Vice President, Business Development
jeff.miller@adelphiacom.com
-
Synopsis
The original contact was Bob Guth, Vice President for Adelphia but after numerous calls without
a reply, Geo-Matrix reached J.C. Calhoun. J.C. requested that another package be sent to his
attention. After his review, he passed it over to the Business Development Vice President, Jeff
Miller. This was done on May 23, 2001.
Adelphia have expressed interest and understands the project. They are unsure at this stage at
what level of participation they can commit before a full review is completed.
The current status is that Geo-Matrix is waiting for feedback from Adelphia and once we have
this, we will update the report accordingly.
15
Adesta Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1200 Landmark Center, Suite 1300
Omaha, NB 68102-1892
(888) 638-6866
Beverly Colan
Director of Sales
bcolan@adestagroup.com
-
Synopsis
On March 26, 2001 the Geo-Matrix team member Dana Veitch spoke with Beverly Colan of the
Adesta Group. Adesta’s business plan is to construct networks, and does not have any capacity
in the SURA footprint.
Therefore, Geo-Matrix does not recommend pursuing Adesta Communications as a potential
partner.
16
Aerie Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1400 Glenarm Place
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 542-1268
Patrick A. Purcell
Vice President, Network Host Sales
ppurcell@aerienetworks.com
www.aerienetworks.com
Synopsis
On March 6, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a meeting at Aerie Networks’ (“Aerie”) corporate offices in
Denver, Colorado to discuss the SURA initiative. In attendance were representatives from
Aerie’s sales (dark fiber), business development, and engineering groups. Additional follow-up
calls and meetings have taken place, as well as conversations during the SURA Vendor
Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001. This synopsis is a result of all these meetings
and conversations. Aerie is willing to think “out-of-the-box” when considering SURA’s needs.
Aerie has a strong focus on the sale of dark fibers. Customers of Aerie can claim ownership of
network received from Aerie and capitalize its costs under the unique sales environment and
network partitioning capabilities that Aerie has created.
Aerie is a relatively new facility based interexchange carrier. Through the use of its founder’s
unique right-of-way (“ROW”) assets, Aerie has aggressive plans to construct a new nationwide
“vendor neutral” high fiber count (432) state-of-the-art network, with few restrictions on its use.
Because it is a new company, Aerie is very interested in taking advantage of the PR benefits that
would come from a partnership with SURA. The founders of Aerie are made up of some of the
nation’s largest pipeline utilities and thus have contributed the major portions of ROW needed by
Aerie. Because of the safety/security requirements inherent in pipeline ROW that carries natural
gas, petroleum and the like, Aerie benefits by getting, for its network, a much higher level of
secure, protected and monitored ROW then many of its competitors.
There may be many opportunities for SURA to influence Aerie’s build. For instance, Aerie
expressed a willingness to allow Geo-Matrix to examine its network plans pertaining to the
routing of their new network in relationship to the locations of SURA member properties that
might be on or near the “path” of their new network deployment. The thinking is; if the location
of both Aeries’ new build and college properties match, there is a possibility that Aerie could
place their required fiber electronics on said property under an attractive purchase, lease or
swapping arrangement with the member university. Such a placement of critical Aerie

In this synopsis the term “sale of” is, in actuality, the Indefeasible Right of Use or “IRU” of dark fibers to SURA.
17
infrastructure would open up additional opportunities to access Aerie or Aerie client bandwidth
for the benefit of both the university providing the space and all other SURA members.
Thus, Aerie can provide information as to the location of where Aerie will need equipment space
to house the electronics that run their network and the networks of their clients in order to
determine if a new deployment model of using college properties is perhaps as good as or better
then their current strategy of using airport properties as possible equipment locations. Timing is
critical to the successful capture of this opportunity, as Aerie is now in the planning stages of
network deployment. Once Aerie commits to its network “path” it will be virtually impossible to
change their routing to accommodate SURA.
Therefore, SURA is scheduled to have a fourth meeting with Aerie on June 22, 2001 at its
Denver headquarters office. At this meeting an investigation into where Aerie needs equipment
space along its network will take place to determine if such locations match up to or come close
to matching up to SURA member properties. Once a specific “property use” opportunity is
discovered, SURA would work with the potentially impacted member university to determine if
land or suitable building space would be available for sale or lease to Aerie or to one or more
vendors hired by Aerie.
Though Aerie appears to be well funded and prepared to construct its network, there is the need
to fund their network/business plan with funding from both equipment vendors and financial
markets. With the recent downturn of the telecom industry in stock values, sales and profits,
many of Aerie’s sources for funding have dramatically slowed down their investments in
telecom ventures, particularly start-up companies like Aerie Networks. This may have a
negative effect on Aerie’s future viability. Nonetheless, Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA
follow through with its additional meetings with Aerie Networks. Geo-Matrix recommends that
SURA use Aerie’s need for revenues and PR benefits to garner the unique cost-effective
solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements it desires.

Aeries likes the idea of airport locations because of the fact that airports often have surplus land and tend to be located at the
edges of metropolitan areas, much like where the Aerie network, is designed to be built.
18
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1349 Empire Central
Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 261-8620
(214) 261-8864
Scott Stricklin
Director, Enterprise Solutions
scott.stricklin@algx.com
www.allegiancetele.com
Synopsis
Allegiance Telecom, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a facilities-based Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier (“CLEC”) that offers small to medium-sized businesses a competitive, onestop-shopping package of telecom services, including local, long distance and a full suite of
Internet services. Network rollout has proceeded on schedule, with 31 markets operational as of
May 15, 2001, including the SURA region cities of Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Dallas, Fort
Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Houston, Miami, Tampa Bay, and Washington DC. They plan to add 5
additional markets in 2001 for a total of 36 to complete their fully funded business plan.
On April 10, 2001, Geo-Matrix completed a telephone interview with 3 members of the
Allegiance team to discuss the SURA initiative and Allegiance’s interests. They are one of the
more stable, financially viable, CLECs in the US and have a management team that has more
than 70 years of combined experience in telecom and finance. Although Allegiance expressed a
high level of interest in the SURA initiative and a high level of interest in a willingness to
partner, a follow-up face to face meeting has yet to be scheduled due to conflicts in schedules
from both groups. The meeting will be scheduled and completed within 2 weeks.
Allegiance is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion section of
this Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the SURA
initiative. In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II meetings,
if any, SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/Geo-Matrix
Conference Call of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any Phase
II telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off established
for these companies.
19
America’s Fiber Network
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215-2373
(914) 835-8574
Tom Newton
Regional Vice President Sales
thomas.newton@afnnet.com
-
Synopsis
It was difficult to reach the original contact for America’s Fiber Network (“AFN”). Another
utility, GPU suggested Tom Newton at AFN’s White Plaines office as a contact. A package was
sent to Tom Newton on Monday, May 21, 2001 and AFN has expresses a very strong interest in
meeting to discuss the SURA initiative further. We are in the process of scheduling the meeting
for next week.
AFN is a consortium of power utilities that contribute a portion of their fiber assets to create a
large regional fiber network. They are in a position to offer solutions to the Western region of
the SURA footprint.
Based on the above, Geo-Matrix recommends continuing the dialog with AFN on exploring
network solutions in their region.
AFN is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion section of this
Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the SURA initiative.
In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II meetings, if any,
SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/Geo-Matrix Conference Call
of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any Phase II telephone calls,
face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off established for these
companies.
20
Atlanta Gas & Light (AGL) Company
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


817 West Peachtree, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 584-3950
Jodie Jones
Sales Department
-
Synopsis
On April 17, 2001 the Geo-Matrix team member Dana Veitch spoke with Jodie Jones and
discussed the SURA imitative. Jodie Jones said there might be an opportunity down the road,
however AGL’s coverage is only in a metro loop around Atlanta as a CLEC communications
company. Ms. Jones recommended we call back in 6 months.
Geo-Matrix recommends eliminating AGL from the “active” list on this project.
21
AT&T Broadband
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


3033 Chain Bridge Road
(703) 691-5195
Gary Comi
District Sales Manager
gcomi@att.com
-
Synopsis
On May 11, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with AT&T at their offices in Oakton, Virginia to discuss
AT&T’s potential role in participating in SURA’s Regional Infrastructure Initiative. AT&T is a
full service provider capable of offering local, national and international service. They requested
that a NDA be signed prior to sharing their network maps and fiber assets. They were very
reluctant to commit on providing dark fiber or wavelengths. AT&T feels that it would be very
tough to have the executives entertain offering these types of services. The reason for this is the
high demand on their current network and their current difficulty in keeping capacity available
on certain routes.
They brought out a report highlighting all the universities that are part of the SURA RII project
area. This list contained contributions that were made by AT&T to the SURA universities. The
list totaled 8.5 million dollars of contributions distributed over a large number of universities and
they thought it was important enough to mention in the Geo-Matrix report. They also explained
that many of the universities are currently AT&T customers. They wondered if the current
services would migrate over to the new network once it was in-service.
AT&T had some interesting questions on which group would be invoiced for the fixed network
and other related services on the network. They asked whether it was the individual universities
or SURA or both that would receive invoices and be responsible for payments. Within AT&T’s
organization, this is very important for assigning internal resources and assigning commissions.
If there is no clear delineation on what group has responsibility for maintaining the account’s
revenue stream, the project’s execution will not be supported. It was agreed at some point that
they needed to involve the Solutions Group to provide technical direction. It was further agreed
that the Sales Group would wait for SURA’s lead on how the billing procedures will be
organized.
Overall, AT&T expressed a great deal of interest and wants to move forward on meeting
members of SURA and discussing the next steps needed to provide a complete solution. They
asked if they were going to be discriminated against because of the size and their unwillingness
22
to offer fiber deals that perhaps smaller network providers would be willing to entertain. The
response to AT&T was that all possible solutions would be evaluated objectively on the basis of
their overall value to the infrastructure initiative.
Geo-Matrix recommends that AT&T be considered as a potential network provider and that
additional meetings should be scheduled with members of SURA.
23
Bell South Interconnect
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



600 North 19th Street, 10th Floor
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 321-7786
Randy Walker
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Bell South Interconnect. Upon calling Bell
South Interconnect to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
Bell South Interconnect wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
24
Broadwing Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75093
(469) 241-2367
(469) 241-9797
Doug Sisler
Senior Sales Consultant
doug.sisler@broadwing.com
www.broadwing.com
Synopsis
Geo-Matrix representative Dana Veitch spoke with David Maddox (Sales) and Lynn Dawson
(Director of Network Contracts). Broadwing is a fully functional telecommunications company
offering lit services nationwide.
Broadwing recognizes the ultimate connection and up side to the campus environment and are
very interested in working with SURA offering a good value to SURA’s backbone.
Broadwing attended the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001, where
they were encouraged to meet with SURA to show them what Broadwing can offer in the way of
assistance in the project.
Doug Sisler from Broadwing contacted Geo-Matrix on June 7, 2001, discussed the project in
detail and indicated that he will be taking over the SURA “account” from David Maddox.
Geo-Matrix recommends that Broadwing be considered as a potential network provider and that
additional meetings should be scheduled with members of SURA.
25
BTI Telecommunications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


4300 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 863-7297
(919) 863-7319
David Vincent
National Collegiate Specialist
david.vincent@btitele.com
www.btitele.com
Synopsis
On March 25, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with David Vincent and Errin Swogger (Wholesale
Account Representative) of BTI. BTI’s current program sells telecom products to colleges in the
southeast and they are very interested in working with SURA.
BTI’s footprint covers a considerable portion of SURA’s footprint, which is a great asset in a
potential partner. BTI can offer additional connectivity with the colleges and universities in the
SURA regions through their extensive metro loop networks.
BTI appears to have outstanding multi level programs for the students and faculty of connected
universities and institutions. Geo-Matrix recommends that BTI would be an excellent candidate
to ask to go the “extra mile” on this project, and to potentially partner with a long haul provider.
26
C2C Fiber, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


8275 El Rio, #110
Houston, TX 77054
(713) 440-4100
(713) 440-4139
Brendan Kierman
VP Strategic Development
bkierman@c2cfiber.com
www.c2cfiber.com
Synopsis
On March 28, 2001 the Geo-Matrix team member Dana Veitch spoke with Brendan Kierman of
C2C fiber. C2C is very interested in working with SURA to provide a network solution. Their
business plan includes constructing a Florida network immediately, and then similar networks in
Georgia and Virginia.
C2C submitted a letter of interest to Dana Veitch in respect to the SURA initiative. The letter
stresses three key areas: objectives, timing, and costs. C2C claims to have a proven cost
management system to reduce operating expenses over their entire network. C2C has also
launched other successful telecom initiatives and they may be considered a viable network
solution in Florida, Georgia and Virginia.
However, SURA may want to use caution when and if it chooses to pursue C2C as a “partner.”
This is because, to many, C2C’s approach to doing business has been questionable. For
example, Geo-Matrix is aware of several state agencies that, for various reasons, regret entering
into business dealings with C2C. Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA use its contacts in
Houston, where C2C is based, to learn more about any specific issues associated with C2C
before pursuing the company further.
27
Cable & Wireless
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1919 Gallows Road
Vienna, VA 22182
(703) 760-3535
Todd Haven
Sales
-
Synopsis
There were a significant number of calls into Cable and Wireless. Most calls resulted in leaving a
voice mail message and this very frustrating process was necessary to speak to a manager.
Finally, Geo-Matrix spoke to the Cable and Wireless representatives; Susan Ludwig, Todd
Haven, Joyce Edwards, and David Jones. Each one of them was given an overview regarding
the SURA initiative and the related objectives. Every one of the employees contacted expressed
a willingness to be involved. The problem was that no one that Geo-Matrix spoke to at Cable
and Wireless knew who, within the company, was in a position to make a decision on
participating in this initiative. It seemed that the company was in disarray and that the parent
company in the UK was making all the decisions and was undermining the role of their North
American managers.
Cable and Wireless has not built their own network in the USA, but has only purchased dark
fibers from other network providers. Further, Geo-Matrix was unable to determine if
wavelengths are a possible option because no one we spoke to knew their company’s position on
the matter. In addition, they could not refer Geo-Matrix to somebody within their company (in
the USA or overseas) that had responsibility for this.
It is for the above stated reasons that Geo-Matrix recommends that Cable and Wireless be
eliminated from consideration as a dark fiber provider to SURA. Cable and Wireless is not on
the list of potential candidates for consideration and further contact on the SURA initiative is not
recommended at this time.
28
CFN FiberNet
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



13420 Reese Boulevard
Huntersville, NC 28078
(800) 686-4940
Ned Foster
Sales
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to CFN FiberNet. Upon calling CFN FiberNet
to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that CFN FiberNet
wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
29
ClearStream Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


650 Bercut Drive, Suite “C”
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 374-0701
Ken Murray
Vice President
kenmurray@clrstrm.com
-
Synopsis
On June 7, 2001 the Geo-Matrix team member Dana Veitch spoke with Ken Murray of
ClearStream Communications. Mr. Murray expressed interest in assisting SURA build a
network within the SURA footprint. ClearStream is a private company, whose parent company
is a gas pipeline company with strong financials.
ClearStream is currently working with SURA Representative Gary Crane on other projects and is
fully aware of how SURA is proceeding with its initiative.
Based on the information provided to Geo-Matrix, it appears ClearStream is in an excellent
position to reach not only the easy targets in the major cities, but also the college/universities in
the 3rd and 4th tier cities very effectively and at a lower cost.
Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA investigate ClearStream further and undertake additional
meetings with them to determine the SURA initiative opportunities.
30
Conectiv Communications, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


252 Chapman Road
Newark, DE 19714
(302) 224-6913
Michael Campbell
National Account Manager
michael.campbell@conectiv-comm.com
www.conectiv.com
Synopsis
On April 17, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a telephone interview with the Newark, Delaware based
National Account Manager for Conectiv Communications, Inc. (“Conectiv”). Additional followup calls were also conducted. Mr. Campbell held internal meetings on the SURA initiative with
other Conectiv senior management, and this synopsis is a result of these conversations.
Conectiv is a competitive local exchange carrier (“CLEC”) providing telecommunication
services in the greater Wilmington, DE area, with network expansions throughout Delaware and
into northern portions of Maryland. The telecommunications service territory mirrors the service
area of Conectiv’s parent company, Conectiv Entergy, an electric utility established in 1997.
Generally, Conectiv cannot provide long haul dark fiber, nor is it willing to consider, at this time,
the provision of dark fiber or wavelengths within its service territory. In addition to explaining
all the possible benefits of partnering with SURA and because of Geo-Matrix's awareness of
joint build opportunities in Conectiv's service area, Geo-Matrix tried to entice Conectiv into
considering a capital cost saving opportunity with SURA under a possible joint build. None of
the benefits described, nor the joint build opportunities presented, were compelling enough to
cause Conectiv to change their stated position.
Conectiv’s stated position to Geo-Matrix is that Conectiv is only willing to engage in discussions
with SURA for the purchase of its menu of traditional lit-based telecommunications services.
Additionally, management has instructed the Conectiv Sales organization to only spend time
with customers that will bring in revenues in the year 2001. Geo-Matrix recommends that
Conectiv not be considered for further meetings based on their lack of interest in meeting the
needs of SURA for unique solutions to its bandwidth requirements.
31
Cox Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



4585 Village Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23502
Peninsula: (757) 369-4632, Southside: (757) 222-6532
H. Steven Goad
Manager, Government and Educational Markets
steve.goad@cox.com
www.cox.com
Synopsis
Unfortunately, after the SURA Package of initiative information was sent out to Cox
Communications’ (“Cox”) Atlanta, GA corporate headquarters, it took them many weeks to
respond back to Geo-Matrix. During those weeks, numerous telephone calls were made to the
corporate offices.
Finally, late in April 2001, Mr. Goad, Manager, Government and Educational Markets called
Geo-Matrix to respond to the SURA initiative. He apologized for the extreme delay in Cox’s
response to this opportunity and assured Geo-Matrix that Cox was, indeed, very interested in
working and partnering with SURA. In fact, during this call Mr. Goad was informed that Cox
Communications was invited to the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina of April 26,
2001 and, even with such short notice, Mr. Cameron Dye, Federal/State Accounts Manager for
Cox showed up to attend on behalf of Mr. Goad.
Following the workshop, several attempts were made to follow up with Mr. Goad with no
response. Finally on May 8, 2001, Mr. Goad sent to Geo-Matrix an e-mail stating that other
pressing business matters prevented Cox from meeting with Geo-Matrix until after June 14,
2001. Mr. Goad did, however, request a conference call that is scheduled to take place the week
of June 4, 2001.
The aforementioned call with Cox will take place, however, due to the Phase II Report deadline
of May 24, 2001, Geo-Matrix must, at this time, consider Cox Communications as unresponsive.
Cox is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion section of this
Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the SURA initiative.
In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II meetings, if any,
SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/Geo-Matrix Conference Call
of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any Phase II telephone calls,
face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off established for these
companies.
32
Digital Teleport, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


8112 Maryland Avenue, 4th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 880-1000
(314) 880-1999
Phillip Adams
Vice President, Network Sales
www.digitalteleport.com
Synopsis
On April 6, 2001 Geo-Matrix conducted a Telephone Interview with Digital Teleport
Incorporated ("DTI"). When explaining the SURA Initiative, DTI’s Phillip Adams seemed to
have some difficulty distinguishing SURA's unique opportunities and needs from those of some
of his more typical corporate clients. SURA may want to use caution when and if it chooses to
pursue DTI as a "partner". DTI has, for several years, experienced questionable business
strategies and large turnovers in management. DTI's lack of pursuit of SURA, its failure to
examine the SURA web site, its lack of any effort to meet with a St. Louis based Geo-Matrix
Team Member, its lack of response to the invitation to and failure to attend the SURA Vendor
Workshop in North Carolina on 4/26/2001, all point to a general lack of the type of sales and
business commitment SURA is looking for.
DTI is a facilities-based communications company whose stated goal is to create an
approximately 20,000 route mile fiber optic network (between 48 & 288 strands) comprised of
23 regional sub-rings interconnecting primary, secondary and tertiary cities in 37 states, which
includes all of the SURA states with the exception of West Virginia. By providing high-capacity
voice/data services to and from these cities, which they believe represent underserved markets,
DTI hopes to be a leading wholesale provider of regional transport services to IXCs as a
"carrier’s carrier". DTI also provides private line services to business and governmental enduser customers. DTI claims high-bandwidth capacity and flexibility as a result of its DWDM
equipment and self-healing SONET rings. The DTI network is exclusively fiber and more than
90% of the DTI network is installed underground. There are extra conduits along selected longhaul routes. DTI offers its regional connectivity services to carriers in high capacity circuits, i.e.
OC-48 optical windows and in smaller capacities on a ring-redundant or a point-to-point basis.
This capacity can be provisioned and monitored from the customer’s own NOC.
Network growth has been made mostly through strategic relationships DTI has established with
state and regional governments to use public highway rights of way. Thus, with DTI, there may
be opportunities in which to undertake joint build opportunities with SURA or to pursue some of
the other unique construction-enabling benefits that SURA can provide as partial compensation
33
for network. However, DTI is now having financial difficulty, and has been for many years,
resulting in, if not bankruptcy, almost bankruptcy (See footnote below). Thus, if you factor in
the “risk avoidance” measures that DTI will be forced to make to appease their creditors and
investors, we expect them to avoid SURA-like unique opportunities, with the result that the
“price-breaking” models that SURA is trying to encourage may be difficult for DTI to achieve.
In the telecom industry they are considered a telecommunications company in trouble. This
potential partner may have difficulty contributing to the success of the SURA Initiative due to its
financial problems and, from the Telephone Interview, a seeming inability to "think-out-of-thebox." To many, DTI’s approach to doing business has been questionable. For example, this
interviewer is aware of several state highway right of way owners, such as the State of Virginia,
who, for various reasons, regret entering into business dealings with DTI. Geo-Matrix
recommends that SURA use its contacts in Virginia to learn more about the specific issues
associated with DTI before pursuing this company further. And, some feel they committed to do
too much in the way of facility “give-aways” when striking their agreements for access to state
DOT highway rights of way.
Yet, even though one might characterize both DTI’s interest in the SURA initiative and its
viability as "weak", Geo-Matrix, nonetheless, does recommend a meeting, during Phase III, with
DTI, but only after SURA has used its Virginia contacts as recommended above. By that time,
DTI's stability may be firmer and the close proximity to David Nissen's office in the St. Louis
area makes the cost of such a visit cost effective. Before a meeting with DTI takes place, GeoMatrix recommends that SURA present only a streamlined variety of opportunities to DTI
concerning their potential role in this initiative.
34
Eastern Kentucky Networks
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating




Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
311 North Arnold Street, PO Box 405
Prestonsburg, KY 41653
(606) 886-6007
Laura Phipps
General Manager
laurap@mrtc.com
-
Contact
Information
Partner
Package

Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
Synopsis
Eastern Kentucky Networks is comprised of five Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
(“CLECs”), with over 318 miles of fiber backbone in Eastern Kentucky. Geo-Matrix has spoken
briefly with Laura Phipps to attempt to set a time for a telephone interview to assess their
capabilities and willingness to partner with SURA. On May 10, 2001 Geo-Matrix spoke to
Laura in a follow-up attempt to schedule a telephone meeting to discuss the SURA initiative only
to be told the following. A member of the Eastern Kentucky Networks team attended the RII
meeting in North Carolina and updated Laura about the initiative. She has expressed a high
interest in meeting further to discuss the possibility of partnering with SURA on this initiative.
A face-to-face meeting will be scheduled during the next two weeks.
Eastern Kentucky Networks is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the
Conclusion section of this Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and
respond to the SURA initiative. In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on
what Phase II meetings, if any, SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly
SURA/Geo-Matrix Conference Call of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to
conclude any Phase II telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15,
2001 cut-off established for these companies.
35
EPIK Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


3501 Quadrangle Boulevard
Orlando, FL 32817
(407) 736-8111
(407) 472-8214
Andy Kissenberth
Director, Sales
akissenberth@epic.net
www.epic.net
Synopsis
On March 3, 2001, Geo-Matrix had a telephone interview with Andy Kissenberth, Director of
Sales at Epik Communications. Epik is based in Orlando and has strong coverage throughout
Florida.
Epik’s products include 20 waves, 10 gigabit to an OC-192, which can be increased up to an OC768 in the near future. They offer, “Wave IRUs”. Epic requests more detail from SURA to
tailor a solution. Epik does not have a last mile solution, however they are eager to work with a
company that does.
The company is very well run and has effectively expanded its network into the northwest with
strategic trades. Due to the fact Epik focuses on cutting edge technology, it would be to SURA’s
advantage to pursue a meeting with their system engineers in order to see exactly what they have
to offer.
36
Evolution Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



11911 US Highway One, Suite 306
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
(561) 624-7570
Bob Glassow
Director of Business Development
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Evolution Communications Inc. Upon
calling Evolution Communications Inc. to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, GeoMatrix was advised that Evolution Communications Inc. wanted to be “taken off the list” of
potential partners.
37
Flight Systems Cablevision
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1001 Alexander Street, Penthouse #2-101
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 576-0710
Al Schuele
Construction Manager
al@fscv.net
-
Synopsis
Flight Systems Cablevision knew about the SURA initiative from Jerry Sobieski at MAX at the
University of Maryland. Al Schuele reported that he was going to attend the workshop in North
Carolina that was being sponsored by SURA.
The information that was provided was that Flight System Cablevision has a very small network
in the Baltimore region and works with the University of Maryland on some other projects. Al
Schuele preferred to continue working through UMD on the SURA initiative.
Although, Flight Systems Cablevision did not attend the workshop, Geo-Matrix recommends a
follow-up meeting with Flight Systems Cablevision to determine the size of their current
network resources.
38
Florida Digital Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


3501 Quadrangle Boulevard
Orlando, FL 32817
(407) 835-0390
Kirt Andreause
Sales Department
kirt.andreause@floridadigital.net
-
Synopsis
On April 4, 2001 a Geo-Matrix team member spoke with Kirt Andreause of Florida Digital
Networks (“FDN”). FDN owns a network in Florida only and offers Internet access, bandwidth,
but no dark fiber.
Kirt feels FDN can offer a specific nitch and would like a Request for Proposal (RFP) submitted
to his office. Geo-Matrix explained SURA’s process will not include a RFP, but they plan to
meet with companies and review prospective networks and see if it can fulfill SURA’s needs.
FD’s services offer a maximum of OC-3s.
Due to the fact FDN operates in Florida only, and there are other potential partner’s with much
stronger networks in Florida, Geo-Matrix recommends not pursuing FD at this time.
39
Florida Fiber Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


3130 Turtlemound Road
Melbourne, FL 32934
(321) 259-1992
(321) 722-3430
Bud Wickline
Director of Business Development
-
Synopsis
On March 26, 2001, a Geo-Matrix team member conducted a telephone interview with Bud
Wickline of Florida Fiber Networks (“FFN”). Mr. Wickline informed Geo-Matrix that the
company President of FFN is also the President of South Carolina University.
FFN is interested in working with SURA in Florida and possibly into South Carolina.
North Carolina meeting was discussed and Bud expressed a moderate interest in attending.
The
Geo-Matrix recommends not considering Florida Fiber Networks from this telephone interview
only because they have a small network and seemed disorganized in their business plans.
40
Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. (FNSI)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


6816 Lauffer Road
Columbus, OH 43231
(614) 899-9687
(614) 899-9924
Rob Neese
Account Manager
neese@fsni.net
www.fsni.com
Synopsis
FNSI had received the package and understood SURA’s objectives and the boundaries of the
regional footprint. Currently, FNSI does not offer dark fiber, only managed bandwidth services
and do not have any network assets in the SURA region.
Geo-Matrix does not recommend further discussions with FNSI, since their assets are not
currently part of the SURA region.
41
Global Crossing (Frontier)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


88 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
(212) 658-8254
Frank Codella
Vice President, North America
frank_colella@globalcrossing.com
-
Synopsis
On April 26, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with Global Crossing to discuss SURA’s Regional
Infrastructure Initiative. Global Crossing (“GX”) is a full service carrier providing local, national
and global services. They currently have 13 national fiber rings in the USA and have significant
submarine cable systems that span the globe. They are currently in the process of building out
their local service in metropolitan regions across the USA. They have an ATM, TDM and IP
network with Add/Drop muxes for collecting and distributing bandwidth on their 13-ring
network.
They are very interested in participating and have assigned company resources to start compiling
the preliminary data on addresses for universities, gigapops and research institutions. They
understand the services that SURA wants to offer and have participated in the past on academic
initiatives. One of the examples they referenced was at Florida International University (FIU),
where GX contributed international bandwidth to South America for the university’s use. GX
believes that some of the metro initiatives that are currently being considered may become
economically feasible with the university’s participation.
Geo-Matrix recommends that GX be considered for subsequent meetings to review their network
expansion plans, service offerings and the economics of partnering with SURA. This company
has excellent qualifications to qualify for further discussions and is highly recommended.
42
ICG Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



161 Inverness Drive West, Suite 100
Englewood, CO 80112
(303) 414-5000
(303) 414-4199
Bob Beaty
Director of Business Development
www.icgcomm.com
Synopsis
ICG claimed bankruptcy approximately one year ago and is currently restructuring the company.
They are not a potential partner now but, if they can recover from their bankruptcy, they may be
a viable partner in the future.
43
ITC Deltacom
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating




Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
1791 O.G. Skinner Drive
West Point, GA 31833-1793
(800) 239-3000
Mike McCollum
Vice President, Business Development
mmccollum@itcdeltacom.com
www.itcdeltacom.com
Contact
Information
Partner
Package

Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA initiative package that was sent to ITC Deltacom. GeoMatrix Representative Dana Veitch has made several phones calls to Mike McCollum, Vice
President - Business Development, at their corporate headquarters, with no response.
In light of the fact that ITC Deltacom provides networking solutions to several SURA member
universities, it would be in both parties interest (SURA’s and ITC Deltacom’s) to continue to
pursue ITC Deltacom for at least a reply, since Geo-Matrix is confident ITC Deltacom is aware
of SURA’s initiative. However, under the current criteria, Geo-Matrix must consider ITC
Deltacom as unresponsive.
44
KMC Telecom Holdings, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1545 Route 206, Suite 300
Bedminster, NJ 07921
(908) 470-2100
(908) 719-8775
Bradley Pipes
Vice President of Sales
b.pipes@kmctelecom.com
www.kmctelecom.com
Synopsis
On March 26, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with Bradley Pipes and Tim Flagin, Sales Representatives
for KMC in North Carolina. Since the discussion, KMC has a clear understanding of the SURA
initiative and mission.
KMC recognized how well their business plan will work in the SURA footprint by focusing on
their 3rd tier cities. KMC currently offers lit services in Baton Rouge, Tallahassee and Norfolk,
with expansion plans throughout the SURA footprint.
Geo-Matrix recommends considering KMC with respect to the use of their 3rd tier strategy of
network deployment.
45
Level (3) Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview





Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
(720) 888-3445
Stephanie Copeland
Vice President, Carrier Development
stephanie.copeland@level3.com
www.level3.com
Synopsis
On March 7, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a meeting at Level(3)’s corporate headquarters in
Broomfield, Colorado to discuss the SURA initiative. In attendance were representatives from
Level(3)’s sales (dark fiber), business development and engineering groups. Additional followup calls and meetings have taken place, as well as conversations during the SURA Vendor
Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001. This synopsis is a result of all these meetings
and conversations. A NDA has been signed between SURA and Level (3) Communications.
Level(3) is a nationwide facility based interexchange carrier with a management team of
seasoned telecom veterans. One of Level(3)’s greatest strengths is its business plan, which is
complementary to SURA. It not only has a total “thinking out-of-the-box” approach to business
and its network, it also has a strong focus on the sale of its dark fibers and, in certain limited
circumstances, the sale of its innerduct(s) . In fact, it is one of the few companies that maintain
a sales force that is dedicated solely to the sale of dark fibers. And Level(3) stressed their ability
to upgrade/change-out their cables due to their multi-conduit system. One of Level(3)’s “out-ofthe-box” ideas was the idea of SURA assisting Level(3) with franchise help with certain cities in
the SURA region.
After explaining all the benefits SURA can bring to Level (3), three unique opportunities
presented themselves. One is the idea of SURA paying the incremental costs of expanding a
Level (3) network site that was designed for local service, but, for financial reasons, not yet built
out (example: Birmingham, AL.). Under this idea, once SURA funded this incremental cost,
Level (3) would be obligated to service the local SURA member university with network and
attractively priced or no-cost services. The other idea was SURA’s funding of some Level (3)
non SURA desired joint builds in exchange for dark fibers and/or innerducts desired by SURA.
For SURA desired joint builds or network expansions, Level (3) is willing to consider such joint
builds and/or expansions in the cities listed below. In anticipation of these possible network


In this synopsis the term “sale of” is, in actuality, the Indefeasible Right of Use or “IRU” of these network elements to SURA.
Level (3) is comfortable with joint builds and has a proven formula for these undertakings.
46
joint builds or expansions, Level(3) has begun the task of mapping SURA ‘s memberships to
Level(3)'s metro networks in Atlanta, GA., Washington, D.C., Wilmington, DE., Raleigh, N.C.,
Miami, FL., New Orleans, LA., Nashville, TN., Tampa, FL., Houston, TX., and Richmond, VA.
And finally, they were interested in discussing the research and development (“R&D”) aspect of
SURA as a means for working cooperatively together with Level(3)’s R&D department.
Level(3) is among the select few telecommunication carriers with its own R&D department.
Though Level(3) appears to be well funded and its nationwide network that is now almost 100%
complete and even though it stressed, in one of our meetings, their ability to fund their
network/business plans without dependence on financial markets, the recent downturn of the
telecom industry in stock value, sales and profits may have a chilling effect on Level(3)’s future
viability. One of its biggest concerns are the delayed hundreds of millions of dollars of interest
payments on their construction funding that will be coming due within the next several years.
Competitors may have network construction/operation costs that are a fraction of what
companies like Level(3) have to pay, forcing Level(3) to either lose sales or force it to drop its
prices for certain services below the costs of providing those services.
Geo-Matrix recommends that Level(3) be considered for further meetings. Geo-Matrix
recommends an investigation into what Level(3) is willing to do in the way of Level(3) network
examinations and resulting ideas for joint build or expansions of network as they may apply to
the relationships between Level(3)’s metro builds (in the previously mentioned cities) and the
associated nearby SURA member campus. Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA use Level(3)’s
need for revenues, its desire for R&D and for joint build opportunities to garner unique costeffective solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements. SURA should be encouraged by the fact
that, unique to Level(3), Level(3) will use a special Level(3) department to negotiate with SURA
that has no responsibility to Level(3)’s fiscal revenues and that is focused solely on long-term
business relationships that, though they may not have immediate financial returns, are important
alliances valuable to Level(3) nonetheless. SURA fits nicely into this unique category.
47
Lightpath (Comcast/Cablevision Systems Corporation)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



420 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, NY 11797
(516) 803-9784
(516) 803-9875
Rudy Welter
Vice President of Network Engineering
Corporate Engineering and Technology
rwelter@cablevision.com
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Lightpath. Upon calling Lightpath to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Lightpath wanted to be
“taken off the list” of potential partners.
48
MCI WorldCom
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


13155 Noel Road, Suite 1300
Dallas, TX 75240
(972) 632-3640
Skip Hendrickson
Executive Director
skip.hendrickson@wcom.com
-
Synopsis
On April 26 2001, Geo-Matrix met with WorldCom to discuss SURA’s Regional Infrastructure
Initiative. WorldCom is a full service carrier, the second largest in the USA, and provides local,
nationwide and global services. They have a nationwide fiber network resulting from the Wiltel
and MCI acquisition, and local services from former MFS and Brooks Fiber Properties, which
are also now a part of WorldCom’s family of companies. They are expanding their reach into
new markets and have an Internet division called UUNet and hosting/colo entity called Digex.
WorldCom is very interested in the initiative, but is not proposing a dark fiber or wavelengths
solution for SURA’s network. Their proposed solution is putting the universities on vBNS+.
Next Generation Internet (NGI) is a research program of the US Government, which funded
WorldCom’s very High Performance Backbone Network service (vBNS) for five years from
1995-2000. WorldCom voluntarily turned vBNS into a commercially available service at the
end of March 2000 and is calling it vBNS+. There are very few customers on this network and
not much interest has been generated in this commercial offering.
This proposed network solution would be limited to a managed bandwidth service with none of
the economies of owning or leasing the infrastructure and reduces the option of introducing
network (layer3) control, which are some of the expressed goals of the SURA’s initiative.
WorldCom’s contact, Skip Hendrickson wants to discuss other possible solutions with one of
WorldCom’s highly regarded employees Vince Cerf (one of the original designers of the
Internet), and see if there are any other options available for SURA’s consideration.
Geo-Matrix recommends that WorldCom be considered for subsequent meetings to discuss the
initiative and to get input into possible network designs. It is not likely that WorldCom’s
management would be convinced to offer fiber or wavelengths, but because of their network
engineering talent, it is worth a follow-up meeting. With the right audience, such a meeting
might prove to be very informative. WorldCom may even perceive a PR angle that might
persuade them to change from their current incumbent style response and suggest a cost-plus
model for bandwidth.
49
The above summary was concluded after the face-to-face meeting with Skip Hendrickson in
North Carolina. Subsequent to this meeting, Natalie Wayne, who was at the meeting with Skip,
called to update the position of WorldCom. This was more favorable in terms of WorldCom’s
flexibility in providing network solutions and not limiting it to VBNS+. As a result of this
change, Geo-Matrix upgraded WorldCom’s overall ratings, which is reflected in the Analysis
Matrix.
50
McLeodUSA
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview


NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


6400 C Street SW, PO Box 3177
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3177
(636) 336-3275
Steven M. Timm (St. Charles, Missouri office)
National Account Manager
stimm@mcleodusa.com
www.mcleodusa.com
Synopsis
On April 16, 2001 Geo-Matrix conducted a meeting at the St. Charles, Missouri office of
McLeodUSA with Steve Timm, National Account Manager and Jeff Shander, Sales Engineer.
An additional meeting was held on April 26, 2001, in conjunction with the SURA Vendor
Workshop in North Carolina, which the same individuals did attend.
McLeodUSA appears to be willing to think “out-of-the-box”, however, they are skeptical and
cautious concerning many of the other potential partners this Geo-Matrix interviewer has
encountered thus far. Many of their probing and critiquing questions and inquiries have been
directly aligned with SURA concerns and issues. These issues raised by McLeodUSA, mostly
technical in nature, are issues that SURA will face as it deploys its network initiative. GeoMatrix believes that additional valuable insights from McLeodUSA will be brought forth upon
signing the requested NDA.
For SURA, McLeodUSA’s network strength resides mainly in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and
Louisiana. Network growth has been made mostly through strategic acquisitions such as
McLeodUSA’s purchase of Splitrock Services, Inc. and Caprock Communications. It is looking
for more network acquisitions in today’s "buyer's market" within the telecommunications
industry. Thus opportunities to undertake joint-builds or new construction opportunities will not
be prevalent with McLeodUSA, and their expected “risk avoidance” measures will not
encourage SURA.
McLeodUSA has a very Midwest, conservative and pragmatic approach to doing business. This
approach has served them well, for they are considered a very successful telecommunications
company in the niche markets that they have strategically pursued. McLeodUSA believes that
one of its greatest strengths is its multitude of unique telecom services. Recently, they improved
their network engineering, operations and construction strengths through judicious hires of
several veteran telecom professionals, well known in the industry, who will address these
network disciplines for McLeodUSA in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jim Shander is knowledgeable about
51
the academic community and has first-hand experience in academic/commercial business deals.
The SURA Initiative has been discussed in the highest levels of McLeodUSA management.
Additional meetings with McLeodUSA could be very cost-effective for SURA when considering
that the St. Charles, Missouri office is only a short six-mile drive from the Geo-Matrix office in
St. Louis, Missouri. Thus, even though one might characterize McLeodUSA’s interest in the
SURA initiative as "measured" (in that they have questioned the wisdom of SURA's entry into
long-haul networking and its ability to run such network), Geo-Matrix, nonetheless, recommends
additional meetings with McLeodUSA. In meeting with McLeodUSA, greater meeting
preparation on the part of SURA will be needed in order to provide this potential partner with a
good demonstration of SURA's network operational capabilities. McLeodUSA will need this
before it will make any further committed efforts to address SURA needs. Geo-Matrix considers
McLeodUSA a potentially good partner for SURA.
52
Metromedia Fiber Network (MFN)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
(973) 364-7807
(973) 364-7719
Gabriel Pannella
National Accounts Manager
gpannella@mmfn.com
www.mmfn.com
Synopsis
On March 30, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with MFN’s National Account Managers located in their
Roseland, NJ regional office. MFN provides considerable local loop connectivity in most tier
one cities throughout the US. Geo-Matrix was provided several maps for cities within the SURA
footprint. Generally, MFN cannot provide long haul dark fiber, but can provide wavelengths
with OC-48 services.
MFN expressed a significant amount of interest in the SURA RII project. MFN can provide
connectivity throughout the entire SURA region. Their initial interest is to offer local loop fiber
or joint build participation. MFN has reduced spending on new construction from $4 Billion in
2000 to $1 Billion in 2001, and has indicated that long haul joint build opportunities will be more
difficult to justify.
Geo-Matrix recommends that MFN be considered for further meetings based on the coverage
offered approximate to several SURA members. There is the potential for last mile joint builds
or provisioning of existing localized dark fiber.
53
NetRail Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 739-4243
(404) 522-1939
Jerome Lozaw
Vice President of Sales
jerome.lozaw@netrail.net
www.netrail.net
Synopsis
On March 26, 2001 Geo-Matrix met with Jerome Lozaw and Mark Childress at the NetRail
corporate office in Atlanta. NetRail is currently merging with 360networks, Inc. NetRail
provides lit services, peering, Internet and routing, and dark fiber solutions.
Geo-Matrix followed this meeting up with another face-to-face meeting in Raleigh, North
Carolina, with Gary Crane, Jerome Lozaw and Dana Veitch in attendance. NetRail indicated
they are already working with Georgia Tech (Ron Hutchins) on telecom solutions.
Geo-Matrix does not recommend pursuing NetRail only because of the financial instability of
360networks, their soon-to-be owner. Should the subject merger dissolve, it is strongly
recommended that NetRail be re-evaluated individually as a strong Partner possibility.
54
NewSouth Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



NewSouth Center
Two North Main Street
Greenville, SC 29601
(800) 600-5050
(864) 672-5055
Penn Gaines
Business Development
Greenville@newsouth.com
www.newsouth.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to NewSouth. Upon calling NewSouth to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that NewSouth wanted to
be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
55
NextLEC
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



1516 Riverside Drive, PO Box 5414
Chattanooga, TN 37406
(423) 242-6000
Doug Smith
Manager of Network Operations
dsmith@nextlec.net
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to NextLEC. Upon calling NextLEC to initiate
a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that NextLEC wanted to be “taken
off the list” of potential partners.
56
Northeast Cable Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



906 Columbia Circle, PO Box 104
Merrimack, NH 03054
(603) 424-2147
Mike Majeski
Project Manger
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Northeast Cable Networks. Upon calling
Northeast Cable Networks to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was
advised that Northeast Cable Networks wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
57
NTS Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



5307 W. Loop 289
Lubbock TX 79414-1610
(806) 797-0687
Justin Larren
Sales Department
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to NTS Communications. Upon calling NTS
Communications to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
NTS Communications wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
58
Pathnet
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



11720 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
(301) 586-8886
(301) 586-8884
Reginald Reed
Regional Sales Director, Mid-Atlantic Region
www.pathnet.net
Synopsis
Pathnet is an industry innovator that is extending the reach of telecommunications service
providers into the under-served markets throughout the U.S. As a "next generation" carriers'
carrier providing competitive local access and
digital transport services, Pathnet's
telecommunications offerings support the expansion objectives of inter-exchange carriers, local
exchange carriers, Internet service providers, Regional Bell Operating companies, cellular
operators and resellers. Pathnet is targeting second and third-tier markets.
Geo-Matrix has not been successful contacting Pathnet to set up a telephone interview. Pathnet
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 2, 2001. Mr. Reed has recently reestablished contact with Geo-Matrix and does wish to set up a telephone interview. To date this
has not been accomplished.
59
PatriotCom
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating




Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
100 N. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 500
Miami, FL 33132
(305) 539-1911
(305) 539-1912
Joe Kohut
Vice President and General Manager
jpkohut@patriotcom.net
www.partiotcom.net
Contact
Information
Partner
Package

Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
Synopsis
PatriotCom is a South Florida-based integrated service provider specializing in intelligent office
buildings. As a leader in the data revolution, they were one of the very first companies to deliver
a high speed, fully redundant managed optical IP networks directly to office suites. Using
managed optical IP networks they offer broadband integrated services, including high-speed
Internet, data, VoIP, and long distance.
Geo-Matrix has been unsuccessful contacting PatriotCom due to a lack of contact information
until the week of May 14, 2001.
PatriotCom is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion section
of this Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the SURA
initiative. In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II meetings,
if any, SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/Geo-Matrix
Conference Call of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any Phase
II telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off established
for these companies.
60
Phonoscope
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



6105 Westline
Houston, TX 77036
(713) 272-4610
Lee Cook
Sales Department
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Phonoscope. Upon calling Phonoscope to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Phonoscope wanted to
be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
61
Progress Telecom
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report

Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


100 2nd Avenue South, Suite 500 South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 820-5961
Steece A. Hayes
Senior Account Manager
shayes@progresstelecom.com
www.progresstelecom.com
Synopsis
On April 27, 2001, and in conjunction with the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina of
April 26, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a meeting with Progress Telecom (“Progress”) to discuss the
SURA initiative. At it’s meeting with Progress, Geo-Matrix encouraged a “thinking out-of-thebox” approach to dealing with SURA’s needs. Progress responded favorably. For example,
Progress stated a willingness to consider “cost plus” price modeling with SURA.
Progress Telecom is a “carrier’s carrier” telecommunications company and has had extensive
experience working with the educational community and has provided network connectivity
solutions to universities in the past. Progress has facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Florida, and in parts of Virginia and Georgia. Because Progress realizes SURA’s region extends
beyond Progress footprint of service, they are trying to make themselves more attractive to
SURA by addressing their network coverage limitations by partnering with another potential
partner on the SURA initiative. Some of their time spent at the SURA Vendor Workshop in
North Carolina was spent talking to other vendors about such possibilities. To-date we do not
know if such a partnership has been consummated.
As part of the electrical utility Progress Energy, Progress appears to be financially strong.
Progress Energy is a Fortune 500 diversified holding company headquartered in Raleigh, N.C.
Progress Energy is one of the top 10 generators of electricity in the U.S. with more than 19,000
megawatts of capacity and $7 billion in annual revenues. The company's diverse portfolio
includes two major electric utility companies, CP&L and Florida Power, as well as the affiliates,
NCNG, SRS, Progress Telecom and Energy Ventures. These companies serve 2.8 million
customers across the Southeast, providing electricity, natural gas, energy services and broadband
telecommunications capacity. Progress Telecom is the number two vendor in the country with
UUnet and works very closely with Williams Communications.
Progress believes that one of their possible contributions to the SURA initiative might have to do
with their business and telecommunications relationships in Central and South America.
Currently Progress has extensive and growing telecommunications interests in South America
62
and operates a Miami area based Gateway into South America through a strategic relationship
they have with Telefonica. With respect to their U.S. networks, Progress is presently deployed
in northern and central Florida and the Carolinas with plans to enhance their current network that
connects these regions.
The provisioning of dark fibers was discouraged by Progress. Instead they offered 10Gig
wavelengths. "Project Clarity" was mentioned as a plus with Progress in that it will provide its
customers with unique asset tracking and allow them to have web enabled network monitoring
capabilities. Progress mentioned their interest in entering the Greenville, South Carolina market
and wondered if SURA and Progress might be able to "partner" in network deployments in or
near this market. Progress claims it could also assist SURA in New Orleans.
Progress’ network deployment plans include serving the somewhat rural areas of the states they
are in, where they know additional SURA-like schools reside. As such, Progress asked if SURA
would appreciate and consider the value they bring by their networks and services reaching other
none-SURA schools within SURA’s region. Further, Progress suggested SURA/Progress joint
builds, both in urban areas (where SURA members might be) and in semi-rural areas, as possible
opportunities for SURA.
Geo-Matrix recommends that Progress be considered for further meetings. Such meetings would
identify if Progress has developed a partner for the SURA initiative. Geo-Matrix recommends an
investigation into what are the non-SURA member schools that SURA might like connectivity to
via Progress’ network (both existing and planned). Once network is identified as attractive to
SURA, Geo-Matrix suggests that, with respect to the portions of network that are new (such as
their interest in Greenville, S.C.), joint build opportunities be explored with Progress. And
finally, Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA and/or Educause discuss with Progress each other’s
Latin America needs and connections to see if either party might gain additional benefits from a
SURA/Progress Telecom partnership.
63
Quanta Services, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview





Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


10940 South Parker Road, PO Box 505
Parker, CO 80134
(303) 805-2595
(303) 840-2031
Rich Greene
Business Development
rgreene@msn.com
-
Synopsis
On March 28, 2001 Geo-Matrix Representative Dana Veitch met with Rich Greene in Denver.
Mr. Veitch and Mr. Greene discussed what services Quanta performs, and how they can assist
SURA to ultimately connect the SURA membership.
Quanta Services is primarily a construction company, focusing on telecommunications and gas
pipeline construction. Quanta is a conglomerate of about 160 companies providing a full scope
of services for the telecom industry. This includes OSP, ISP, construction implementation,
installation, splicing, and testing.
Please refer to Geo-Matrix’s suggested Change Order document (see supplemental document)
for details on Quanta and the very unique opportunity that has been presented to Geo-Matrix
regarding the SURA initiative.
Quanta Services would be a good construction company to consider should SURA entertain
constructing portions of the network themselves, such as last mile builds, or where other gaps
occur in the network.
64
Qwest Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



555 17th Street
Denver, CO 80201
800-793-4357
John Walker
Director of Business Development
www.qwest.com
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA initiative package that was sent to Qwest
Communications. Geo-Matrix Representative Dana Veitch has made several phones calls to
John Walker, Director of Business Development at their corporate headquarters, with no
response.
In light of the fact that Qwest operates the Abilene Network, it would be in both parties interest
(SURA and Qwest) to continue to pursue Qwest for at least a reply, since Geo-Matrix is
confident Qwest is aware of SURA’s initiative. However, under the current criteria, Geo-Matrix
must consider Qwest Communications as unresponsive.
65
RCN Corporation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



105 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540-6251
(609) 734-3700
Rita Clements
Business Development
rita.clements@rcn.net
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to RCN Corporation (“RCN”). Upon calling
RCN to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that RCN wanted
to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
66
SBC Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



1010 N. St. Mary’s, Room 4-R-02
San Antonio, TX 78215
(210) 886-3728
(210) 886-3709
Bill Starr, Jr.
Sales Development
bs4847@txmail.sbc.com
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to SBC Communications (“SBC”). Upon
calling SBC to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that SBC
wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
67
Southern Telecommunications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report

Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


3003 Summit Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30308
(678) 443-4124
(678) 576-6681
Phil Franklin
Vice President, Business Development
BPFrankl@southernco.com
www.southernco.com
Synopsis
On March 25, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with Phil Franklin of Southern Telecom (“Southern”).
Southern is a subsidiary of Southern Company, a major power company based in Atlanta, GA.
Mr. Franklin explained how Southern is in the final stages of finishing their initial 1,400-mile
footprint in the southeast part of the United States. This footprint appears to overlay closely with
SURA’s footprint. Southern is in the position to lead a joint-build in the 1,400-mile construction
project and the timing appears to be very favorable to SURA’s interests and convenience.
Southern is funded and fully supported by Southern Company and is financially sound. Southern
would not be a risk if SURA were to pursue projects with them. Geo-Matrix recommends that
another meeting with Southern take place to discuss specifically the joint-build opportunities
available to SURA.
68
Sprint Corporation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


2330 Shawnee Mission Parkway
Westwood, KS 66205
(877) 854-3115
(888) 970-4127
Jerry Moore
Data Account Specialist
jerry.d.moore@mail.sprint.com
-
Synopsis
On April 17, 2001 a Geo-Matrix team member spoke with Jerry Moore and Dan O’Reilly of
Sprint Corporation on the telephone. They indicated that Sprint has previously attempted to sell
to SURA but were unable to make any progress. They indicated an inability to travel to North
Carolina but would attempt to send a local representative to the meeting.
Sprint is an internationally known telecommunications company that could offer virtually all that
SURA requests. However, their network often rides on another carrier, which SURA is already
considering as a “partner.” Therefore, it is recommended that SURA keep Sprint “in mind” as a
“fall back” partner, should other telecom parties not be able to fulfill SURA’s requirements.
69
st3.com
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report

Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1516 Riverside Drive, PO Box 5414
Chattanooga, TN 37406
(888) 608-5673
(423) 622-4392
Bill Howard
Director, Corporate Solutions
bhoward@st3.com
www.st3.com
Synopsis
On March 27, 2001, Geo-Matrix and Gary Crane met with Bill Howard in Raleigh, North
Carolina. st3.com specializes in video streaming.
st3 does not have long haul dark fiber services, only lit services ranging from OC-3 to OC-192.
st3 is involved in Distance Education with Mississippi State using Symah Vision Reality. st3 has
a large encoding facility in Chattanooga, TN. st3 has peering partnerships throughout the nation
with currently 7 POP's, to increase to a total of 38 POP’s nationwide.
st3 appears to have mastered video streaming that could very useful in SURA’s objectives.
More information on the company’s financial stability should be reviewed.
70
Teleglobe, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30319
(404) 252-3310
Stefan Pittinger
Internet Sales Manager
stefan.pittinger@teleglobe.com
-
Synopsis
On April 25th 2001, Geo-Matrix met with Teleglobe, Inc. (“Teleglobe”) to discuss SURA’s
Regional Infrastructure Initiative. Teleglobe is a local and international provider in Canada and
regional full service provider in the United States and Canada. Their parent company is Bell
Canada Enterprises (“BCE”), which has large holdings in sports teams, TV stations, newspaper,
telecommunications, Internet and other multimedia and infrastructure assets. They also have
built and own submarine fiber-optic cable systems across the globe.
Teleglobe is involved in other university and academic initiatives like MIRnet in Russia and the
digital international consortium Star Tap and the “all optical" Starlight project in the United
States. They have worked with the National Computational Science Alliance (NCSA) and are in
the process of upgrading MIRnet’s international facility from 6mb/s to 155mb/s. They are very
interested in continuing to work with the academic community and see SURA as another
opportunity to contribute to this legacy.
Teleglobe did not build a network in the United States, but have purchased dark fiber pairs from
nationwide fiber providers. They are currently using DWDM to offer lightwaves (lambdas) to
their carrier and corporate clients. They are willing to examine all options with SURA and
determine what assets will best serve this initiative. They probably will look to offer a
wavelength solution as an alternative to dark fiber because of their limited inventory of dark
fiber.
Geo-Matrix recommends that follow-up meetings be arranged with SURA to discuss the various
SURA initiative opportunities that can be provided by Teleglobe.
71
Time Warner Telecom
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


10 Glendale Parkway, Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30328
(678) 579-8812
Bill Ryan
Regional Vice President
bill.ryan@twtelecom.com
www.twtelecom.com
Synopsis
On March 25, 01, Geo-Matrix met with Bill Ryan, Regional Vice President of Time Warner
Telecom (“TWT”), to discuss SURA’s initiative in the southeast. Mr. Ryan described TWT’s
strong nationwide telecommunications backbone.
Mr. Ryan also discussed how their backbone offers international connectivity for SURA. Mr.
Ryan explained how he knew Ron Hutchins of Georgia Tech (a SURA member) and that he had
discussed opportunities with SURA member colleges prior to the start of SURA’s current
initiative.
TWT can offer a very strong, maintenance free (to SURA) lit services network to serve the
institutions in major SURA cities immediately. TWT is now in the planning stages of offering
connectivity to the second and third-tier cites, college, or universities.
Time Warner was recently bought out by AOL and appears to have moderate financial stability.
It is recommended that SURA acquire their latest financials prior to pursuing TWT. Also, it is
recommended that another meeting be held with TWT to further explore any potential
opportunities that might exist.
72
Touch America, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


8450 East Crescent Parkway
Englewood, CO 80111
(720) 493-3000 (Karen Smith cell 703-608-5764)
(720) 493-3055
Karen Smith
Director Federal Accounts
ksmith@tamerica.com
www.tamerica.com
Synopsis
On May 17, 2001 Geo-Matrix representatives Dana Veitch and Joe Golden met with Karen
Smith, Ken Williams and Steve Cardwell, Account Representatives of Touch America in their
Denver office. Touch America is owned by Montana Power Company, based out of Butte,
Montana, with an extensive network and business throughout the west and northeast. This
network is the result of acquiring USWest’s long distance business and other subsequent
acquisitions.
Their team informed us Touch America is debt free through various sales and divestments of the
gas pipeline and related facilities, and is eager to adjust their business and construction plans to
meet SURA’s needs. Touch America is well positioned in Washington, DC via their lobbying
efforts for their energy business and has shifted these efforts to support their telecom expansion.
Touch America is working closely with and jointly constructing a nationwide network with
Velocita (formerly PF.Net) and AT&T (see executive summaries for AT&T and Velocita). It is
recommended that further investigation be performed on the three companies’ relationships with
each other in order to determine if it is best to consider working with them as a whole, or
individually.
73
USCarrier Telecom, LLC
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



180 Interstate North Parkway, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
(678) 454-1400
Ron Morrison
Director of Sales and Marketing
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to USCarrier Telecom, LLC (“USCarrier”).
Upon calling USCarrier to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised
that USCarrier wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
74
ValleyNet
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



401 Spring Lane
Waynesboro, VA 22980
(540) 946-3525
Gene Sandridge
Sales Department
genes@valleynet.com
www.valleynet.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to ValleyNet. Upon calling ValleyNet to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that ValleyNet wanted to
be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
75
Velocita (PF.NET)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1800 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20191
(703) 262-7234
Bob Collet
President
bob.collet@velocita.com
www.velocita.com
Synopsis
On April 11, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a meeting at Velocita’s corporate offices in Reston, Virginia
to discuss the SURA initiative. In addition to Mr. Collet, there were representatives from
Velocita’s sales and engineering groups. Additional follow-up calls took place after this
meeting, as well as conversations during the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on
April 26, 2001. This synopsis is a result of all these conversations.
Velocita is a nationwide facility based interexchange carrier strategically partnered with AT&T,
Koch Industries and Touch America. Velocita is under contract with AT&T to build 6,400 miles
of AT&T's IP network. These well-know strong partners, along with a management team of
seasoned telecommunications veterans, are building a new fiber network nationwide by using, in
part, AT&T’s unique right-of-way (“ROW”) assets.
Velocita can provide dark fiber, but it is also willing to consider network joint builds and/or
network adjustments if the timing and financial benefits are good and compelling. Thus, there
may be opportunities to influence Velocita’s build for SURA’s benefit. After explaining all the
benefits SURA can bring to Velocita, they were particularly interested in discussing the research
and development (R&D) aspect for the possible rollout of new services by Velocita. Mr. Collet
seems particularly knowledgeable about SURA and the educational community in general.
Velocita is well funded and is building an 18,800-mile network using AT&T’s specifications that
is now 60% complete. Part of their business plan is to have network construction and operation
costs that are a fraction of companies like Level(3), Aerie, etc. Part of their cost-saving strategy
is their ability to use AT&T’s ideally located ROW, under very attractive terms (for example, a
40 year right to use). The AT&T ROW tends to be old well-established ROW and is located in
more urban areas then many of Velocita’s competitors. Thus, there is a higher likelihood that the
AT&T ROW will be at or near a SURA member university. Finally, Velocita's stated practice of
swapping indicates they are comfortable with swapping arrangements, an option attractive to
SURA.
76
Geo-Matrix recommends that Velocita be considered for further meetings. Because of
Velocita’s close relationship with AT&T, Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA match-up its
AT&T efforts (See AT&T reports) with its Velocita efforts. Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA
use Velocita’s desire for R&D and resulting new services and its desire for joint build
opportunities to garner unique cost-effective solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements.
77
Verizon Communications (TSI Telecommunications Services, Inc. – A Division of Verizon)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 273-3240
(813) 273-4707
Ken Hammer
Director of Technical Architecture Strategy
khammer@tsiconnections.com
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Verizon. Upon calling Verizon to initiate a
discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Verizon wanted to be “taken off
the list” of potential partners.
78
Williams Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report

Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


58 Camden Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
(678) 296-4802
Rob Armstrong
Regional Director, Sales
rob.armstrong@wilcom.com
www.williamscommunications.com
Synopsis
On April 24, 2001 a representative of Geo-Matrix met with Rob Armstrong of Williams
Communications. William’s network covers a significant amount of the SURA footprint. Mr.
Armstrong was very interested in providing a long haul solution that would include IXC-IP
networks. Williams does not have any local loop networks to offer that will reach the individual
SURA member colleges and universities.
Mr. Armstrong is very interested in meeting face to face with the SURA team to further explain
and assist SURA in a network that would include the Williams network. Williams appears to be
sound, with Williams Pipeline Company fully supporting their telecom company.
79
XO Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



11111 Sunset Hills Road
Reston, VA 22190
(703) 547-2000
Chuck Sackly
Senior Vice President National Sales and Marketing
www.xo.com
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA Package of initiative information or to numerous
telephone calls and e-mails sent to their corporate headquarters in Virginia.
A representative of Geo-Matrix has contacted a personal friend at XO Communications (“XO”),
the General Manager, John Hackett of the New York City office. Mr. Hackett did respond to
Geo-Matrix with a brief but detailed conversation on the initiative. Mr. Hackett indicated that he
needed the corporate office to respond to this opportunity, and promised that he would have the
appropriate person at the XO headquarters call Geo-Matrix back.
As of this date, there has been no response from XO’s corporate offices and several follow-up
attempts to reach Mr. Hackett have gone unanswered. On these calls, voice mail messages were
left. Thus, at this time, Geo-Matrix must consider XO Communications as unresponsive.
80
Yipes Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


4324 Hanover Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32224
(904) 612-5581
Leo Madrid
Director, Strategic Alliance
lmadrid@yipes.com
www.yipes.com
Synopsis
On May 3, 2001 Geo-Matrix met with Leo Madrid of Yipes Communications (“Yipes”) in their
Denver, Colorado office. Yipes’ network is based on gigabit Ethernet technology. Yipes claims
that this is more cost effective that an ATM or Sonet network.
Yipes business operations focus on Metro Ring local networks. Their NOCs are located in San
Francisco and Denver. They also insure their network with a backup under Lucent’s NOC in
San Francisco. They do not own dark fiber nor do they offer long haul services.
Yipes Metro Rings, that are located in the SURA footprint, include Atlanta, Dallas, Houston,
Miami and Washington, DC.
Yipes business plan would fit very well with a long haul provider, whereby they could offer “last
mile” solutions and they can match the technology of long haul service providers. Geo-Matrix
recommends taking a closer look at Yipes’ business plans and how they might complement
SURA’s objectives.
81
360networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report

Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


12101 Airport Way
Broomfield, CO 80021
(303) 854-5000
Don Unrein
Manager, Business Development
don.unrein@360.net
www.360.net
Synopsis
Geo-Matrix Representatives David Nissen and Daniel Davies met with 360networks employees
Patrick Gould, Tom Korte, Nancy Abeyta and Don Unrein on March 6, 2001. Conversations
continued with a 360networks representative and Jerome Lowzal of NetRail after the SURA
North Carolina Vendor Workshop of April 26, 2001.
360networks is a nationwide “carrier’s carrier”, offering lit services and dark fiber. Their
network is similar to other carriers, who can offer the same product.
Since Mr. Nissen’s face-to-face meeting of March 6, 2001, it has been publicly announced that
360networks is having financial difficulties. Until 360networks is able to rectify the issues at
hand, Geo-Matrix does not recommend pursuing 360networks at this time. Should 360network’s
situation turn around and SURA is still interested in pursuing additional potential provider
networks (and pricing), then 360networks should be considered with caution, asking for a
complete up-to-date financial report.
82
Electrical Power Utilities and Authorities
Allegheny Communications Connect
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


RR # 12, Roseytown Road, Box 1000
Greenburgh, PA 15601
(724) 838-6038
John Flinko
Vice President of Telecommunications
jflinko@allegheneyenergy.com
-
Synopsis
Allegheny Connect received the SURA initiative package and understands the SURA objectives
very well. There is a portion of their network that is in the SURA footprint and the potential for a
joint build project was discussed. John Flinko reports that they currently behind in completing
the 2,000 mile Allegheny network and do not want to be distracted from this objective.
Geo-Matrix does not recommend any further discussions with Allegheny based on their absolute
lack of interest in participating in the SURA initiative.
83
American Electric Power Company (AEP)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


One Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 223-3598
Patrick Collins
Director Business Development
-
Synopsis
Messages were left for Patrick Collins at American Electric Power Company (“AEP”) on 3/14,
3/28, 4/23, 4/25 and 5/7. Since AEP is part of the America’s Fiber Network (“AFN”)
consortium and AFN has responded, AEP network is being included in AFN’s response.
84
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



2404 LaSalle Avenue
Waco, TX 76702
(254) 750-8500
Tony Kroskey
Manager, Telecommunications
-
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA Package that was sent to Brazos Electric Power
Cooperative (“Brazos”). Upon calling Brazos to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative,
Geo-Matrix was advised that Brazos wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners since
they were in the middle of deregulation and had neither the time nor the interest to respond to the
SURA initiative.
85
Columbia Transmissions Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



12801 Fair Lakes Parkway
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703) 227-3474
(703) 227-3366
Rick Thomas
Network Engineer
drthomas@nisource.com
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Columbia Transmission Communications
(“CT”). Upon calling CT to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was
advised that CT wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
86
CMS Energy
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


33 Town Center Drive, Suite 1100
Dearborn, MI 48126
(313) 982-9210
(313) 436-9449
Lynda Duffy
Director Global Development
ljduffy@cmsenergy.com
-
Synopsis
Calls were made to Lynda Duffy and voice mail messages were left on 3/29, 4/12, 4/16, and
5/10. No response has been received. It is suspected that, because of CMS’s location and the
fact that they do not have telecom assets in the SURA region, they are not interested.
As of this date, there has been no response, so, at this time, Geo-Matrix must consider CMS
Energy as unresponsive.
87
Dominion Telecom
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


701 East Cary Street, 9th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
(814) 274-9830
Tom Hogg
Manager Business Development
tom.hogg@dom.com
-
Synopsis
Tom Hogg attended the North Carolina workshop sponsored by SURA on April 26, 2001. He
believes there is significant value to SURA that can be realized by working with Dominion
Telecom (“Dominion”). There are a large amount of SURA member universities that are very
close to Dominion’s network in Virginia. Tom Hogg also mentioned Jefferson Labs as a good
candidate for Dominion to connect to.
Dominion is not promoting dark fiber as a product, but would consider this option with SURA.
Most of their fiber is currently aerial and they believe this is an advantage on cost. Dominion
would entertain a joint build if it is cost justifiable. They emphasized that each opportunity will
be evaluated on its level of financial return and each must stand on its own merits.
It is recommended that there be a face-to-face meeting with Dominion and that a NDA be signed
as required by Dominion. At such a meeting SURA will be able to better evaluate Dominion’s
network and determine the opportunities, if any, which are available to SURA.
Dominion Telecom is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion
section of this Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the
SURA initiative. In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II
meetings, if any, SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/GeoMatrix Conference Call of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any
Phase II telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off
established for these companies.
88
Duke Energy (DukeNet Communications, LLC)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



MC CS03D, 400 S. Tyron Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1904
(704) 382-3360
Stan Coleman
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Duke Energy. Upon calling Duke Energy to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Duke Energy wanted
to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
89
Dynegy Connect L.P.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview




Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


2821 South Parker Road, Suite 700
Aurora, Colorado 80014
(412) 242-5110
Anne Amster
Sales Director, Mid-Atlantic Region
aamster@extant.net
www.dynegy.com
Synopsis
On March 7, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with Dynegy at their Denver, Colorado offices. Ironically,
even though Dynegy is very knowledgeable about the educational community and its many
ongoing initiatives, it may be too close to the educational community to be able to think “out-ofthe-box” in the ways desired by SURA. This closeness stems from the fact that Dynegy regularly
sends a representative to and participates in the many seminars, conferences and workshops help
around the country by such organizations as Educause. Unfortunately, as a result of getting too
close, Geo-Matrix senses that Dynegy may have become skeptical about the direction and
potential for success of many of these initiatives. Many of the probing and critiquing questions
and inquiries presented by Dynegy seemed to be indicative of a negative attitude towards the
success of the SURA RII. In fact, Dynegy advised Geo-Matrix that, at some of the
aforementioned conferences, telecom representatives questioned the validity of some of the value
assumptions the educational community was making regarding the intangibles felt to be valuable
to the telecommunications industry and that they warned the educational community not to have
high expectations on the values expected from these intangibles.
Dynegy is unable to provide dark fiber to SURA and can only provide “lit” services. Dynegy’s
“network” consists of four strands leased from Level (3) Communications on its 16.000-mile
network. Because of the make-up of their network, Dynegy has few, if any, opportunities in
which to undertake joint builds with SURA, or to pursue some of the other unique constructionenabling benefits that SURA can provide as partial compensation for network delivery to SURA.
On the positive side, Dynegy is a strong company with a good foundation of parent companies,
such as Chevron, to back up its efforts. Thus, even with the recent downturn of the telecom

It is important to note that Dynegy failed to send a representative to North Carolina to attend the SURA Vendor Workshop of
4/16/2001.

For instance, when Geo-Matrix offered up to Dynegy the possibility of SURA providing public relations benefits to its
telecommunication partners, Dynegy could not think “out-of-the-box” and questioned SURA’s ability to deliver on this promise
stating limitations posed by students not knowing who provides many of the telecommunication services on campus.
90
industry in stock values, sales and profits, Dynegy is showing positive results with many signs of
success and, comparatively speaking, its stock value is high. Some of its sales have been to the
educational community. Finally, another positive point to make was the meeting discussion
Geo-Matrix had with Dynegy about the possible use of SURA to cost justify extension of
Dynegy's network off of the Level (3) network. Joe Williams, in charge of network development
for Dynegy, seemed to be particularly interested in this possibility.
As a result of all the above information and because one might characterize Dynegy’s interest in
the SURA initiative as "guarded”, Geo-Matrix does not recommend that SURA meet with
Dynegy in the formal manner that has been recommended for other potential partners of the
SURA initiative. We simply do not see the value components necessary to justify SURA’s time
and effort. This recommendation is further supported by the fact that SURA can meet with
Dynegy, at SURA’s convenience, during and at any one of the many educational community
seminars Dynegy will no doubt be attending in the near future.
91
Enron Broadband Services
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



1400 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002-7361
(713) 853-6016
(713) 646-8518
Scott Yeager
scott_yeager@enron.net
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Enron Broadband Services (“Enron”). Upon
calling Enron to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Enron
wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
92
Entergy
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



639 Loyola Avenue, L-MOB-7B
New Orleans, LA 70113
(800) 368-3749
Earl Fredric
www.entergy.com
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA Package of initiative information that was sent to
Entergy. There has been no response to numerous telephone calls made to their corporate
headquarters in New Orleans, nor has there been any response to several emails that were sent.
An employee of Geographic Network Affiliates International, Inc. (“Geo”) (one of the parent
companies to Geo-Matrix) has a contact at Entergy’s Little Rock, AK office. He was contacted
and, as a result, Entergy did contact Geo-Matrix. After a brief but detailed conversation on the
initiative, the Little Rock office realized that it needed the corporate office to respond to this
opportunity and promised to have the appropriate person at Entergy’s headquarters call GeoMatrix back.
As of this date, there has been no response from Entergy’s corporate offices and several followup attempts have gone unanswered. On these calls, voice mail messages were left. Thus, at this
time, Geo-Matrix must consider Entergy as unresponsive.
93
Florida Power & Light
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


301 S.E. 4th Avenue
Miami, FL 33174
(305) 552-3596
Deborah Hardin
Vice President Sales
deborah-harrin@fpl.com
www.fplfibernet.com
Synopsis
On April 30, 2001, Geo-Matrix had a telephone interview with Deborah Hardin of FPL Fibernet
(“FPL”). FPL’s telecom business focus is a tri-county area in and around Miami, Orlando,
Tampa, Jackson and Melbourne, Florida. FPL has a considerable amount of dark fiber available
throughout their network and in strategically routed metro loops throughout these cities. They
also offer lit services up to OC-192 and Colo space in all of their locations.
FPL has an outstanding infrastructure with interconnection to all the cable heads landing on the
east coast of Florida. They currently have 2 NAPs (Node Access Points) along their route that
could be very useful to SURA.
FPL Fibernet is a subsidiary of the power utility Florida Power and Light and has a strong
balance sheet. Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA pursue FPL in that they have their
infrastructure throughout Florida and offer the largest amount of fiber capacity in the area.
94
Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



301 S.E. 4th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32614
(352) 334-3400
(352) 334-3151
Greg Winkler
www.gru.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Gainesville Regional Utilities (“GRU”).
Upon calling GRU to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
GRU wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
95
GPU Telecom Services
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview

NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


PO Box 15164
Reading, PA 19612-5164
(610) 375-5046
(610) 988-6006
Mike Damiano
Senior Sales Account Executive
www.gputelecom.com
Synopsis
On May 10, 2001, Geo-Matrix met with the General Manager of Telecom and Senior Sales
Account Representative for GPU Telecom Services (“GPU”). Geo-Matrix presented the SURA
RII initiative in detail. GPU presented its existing and proposed network including mapping.
GPU was not willing to let SURA have the maps at this time, due to lack of an NDA.
GPU has a strong presence in the northeast, primarily serving New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and parts of Maryland. GPU did express an interest in last mile
solutions and joint build opportunities in the Maryland region.
Geo-Matrix does not recommend further face-to-face meetings based on the limited availability
of GPU infrastructure in the SURA footprint. Additional mapping of GPU assets will be
requested and included in the SURA Phase II Report Supplementals.
96
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



3701 Lake Austin Boulevard
Austin, TX 78703
(512) 473-4045
(512) 473-4066
George Schlage
Sales Department
gschlage@lcra.org
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Lower Colorado River Authority
(“LCRA”). Upon calling the LCRA to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix
was advised that the LCRA wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
97
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


1470 Riveredge Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30328
(770) 563-0416
Brian Savory
Business Development Manager
bsavory@georgiapublicweb.net
www.georgiapublicweb.net
Synopsis
On April 10, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a Telephone Interview with GeorgiaPublicWeb, the
telecommunications arm of the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (“MEAG”), an electric
cooperative utility serving mostly rural Georgia. GeorgiaPublicWeb not only received the
SURA Package, but also is a long time associate of Georgia Tech's Ron Hutchins. Ron is a very
active member of SURA. As a result, GeorgiaPublicWeb knows SURA and the SURA initiative
very well. Mr. Savory and Mr. Hutchins have had many discussions and “brain-storming”
sessions on the initiative. Mr. Savory attended the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina
on April 26, 2001, but no face-to-face meeting was held, given the intimate knowledge of
GeorgiaPublicWeb already held by SURA staff member Hutchins.
MEAG is a 20-year-old entity that is State of Georgia enabled to provide electrical service as a
cooperative based utility servicing rural Georgia. They serve 48 Georgia cities and one county
with electrical and, in one form or another, telecommunication services. As a State enabled
entity, it not only has a responsibility to provide cost-effective and reliable electrical service, but
it also has a social and civic responsibility to seek ways to use its powers to promote economic
development and improve the quality of life for the citizens within its service territory. Many of
these goals match up with the similar social and civic goals of SURA. GeorgiaPublicWeb knows
this and is therefore very interested in partnering with SURA. In fact, part of the reason for the
establishment of GeorgiaPublicWeb was and is to “bring low cost bandwidth to the region for
economic development". SURA can work with MEAG to help reach this goal.
Five years ago MEAG decided to assist its customers by getting into the telecommunications
business to help rural Georgia. They started with four cities and today have a $35M
telecommunications network in place consisting of approximately 1,000 route miles. As an
electrical utility they have the advantage of having plenty of right of way. MEAG operates 200
substations. Its telecommunications side of the business operates as GeorgiaPublicWeb and is
currently providing high speed Internet access through ten Network Access Points (“NAPs”) in
Georgia, located in the cities of Atlanta, Calhoun, Cartersville, Dalton, Forsyth, Fort Valley,
Griffin, LaGrange, Newnan and Thomasville. Its telecommunication customers include the
98
Georgia cities of Albany, Cornelia, Jackson, Monticello, Hinesville, Baxley, West Point and
Barnesville. A total of 12 cities in its service territory are authorized to act as Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers or “CLECs”. MEAG acts as a "carrier’s carrier" for these cities.
GeorgiaPublicWeb has a 24-hour, 7-day Network Operations Center (“NOC”) that is staffed by
experienced telecom and data networking specialists. The NOC staff monitors, manages and
provisions MEAG’s SONET and IP based network. User Management is provided as a service,
which lets customers use the GeorgiaPublicWeb management tools from the customer’s sites.
This allows customers to monitor their own network and provision their own circuits without
buying expense million dollar network management systems. MEAG is already working with
Georgia Tech to allow Georgia Tech to get to Internet2 connectivity through the Georgia
PublicWeb. In fact, part of the GeorgiaPublicWeb is housed at Georgia Tech.
GeorgiaPublicWeb has expressed a need for a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) to be signed
before proceeding with further discussions. Geo-Matrix recommends that MEAG, or more
appropriately Georgia PublicWeb, be considered for further meetings.
Because of
GeorgiaPublicWeb’s close relationship with Georgia Tech, Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA
match-up Georgia Tech’s efforts with GeorgiaPublicWeb with its own needs. Geo-Matrix
recommends that SURA leverage GeorgiaPublicWeb’s stated desire for economic development
within its service territory to garner unique cost-effective network solutions for SURA.
99
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



3400 Summer Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27616
(919) 872-0800
(919) 954-7135
Chuck Terrell
Director of Business Development
chuck.terrell@ncemcs.com
www.ncemcs.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to the North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation (“NCEMC”). Upon calling the NCEMC to initiate a discussion on the SURA
initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that the NCEMC wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential
partners.
100
Oglethorpe Power
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



2100 East Exchange Place, PO Box 1349
Tucker, GA 30085-1349
(770) 270-7600
(770) 270-7872
Greg Jones
Director of Business Development
greg.jones@opc.com
www.opc.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Oglethorpe Power. Upon calling
Oglethorpe Power to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
Oglethorpe Power wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
101
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



401 North Harvey
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
(405) 588-7000
Tim Mikles
Vice President
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Oklahoma Natural Gas. Upon calling
Oklahoma Natural Gas to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised
that Oklahoma Natural Gas wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
102
OGE Energy Corporation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



Mail Code GB10, South Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
(405) 553-2434
John Grunsteed
Director of Business Development
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to OGE Energy Corporation (“OGE”). Upon
calling OGE to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that OGE
wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
103
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


Innsbrook Corporate Center
4201 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
(804) 968-4023
(804) 747-3742
Jack Reasor
President and CEO
-
Synopsis
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (“ODEC”) is a not-for-profit wholesale power supply
cooperative engaged in the business of providing wholesale electric service to its 12 member
distribution cooperatives located in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Being a regional
provider, ODEC is sensitive to the municipal area’s interests and the needs and requirements of
the SURA initiative. Through other endeavors, ODEC has accepted the educational initiative
platform and has senior executives that are university and society conscientious. Based on their
mission statement, the company is committed to provide a better way of life for its members.
Their executive team is comprised of seasoned management that are extremely interested in
being flexible, utilizing their right of way, and are desiring to operate as a lead operator for fiber
builds. Responsive discussions have shown that ODEC has a unique relationship with the
National Electric Cooperative Board. They are willing to introduce the SURA initiative as a
viable venture to the various other Cooperatives that are in the SURA territory helping to stretch
their regional status to complete coverage of the southeast region.
Old Dominion Electric is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the
Conclusion section of this Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and
respond to the SURA initiative. In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on
what Phase II meetings, if any, SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly
SURA/Geo-Matrix Conference Call of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to
conclude any Phase II telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15,
2001 cut-off established for these companies.
104
Potomac Electric Power Company
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



3400 Benning Road, NE
Washington, DC 20019
(202) 388-2263
Mark Grey
Manager
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to PEPCO. Upon calling PEPCO to initiate a
discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that PEPCO wanted to be “taken off
the list” of potential partners.
105
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



Post Office Drawer 11649
Columbia, SC 29211
(803) 896-5128
James McDaniel
Chief of Telecommunications
james.mcdaniel@pse.state.sc.us
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to PSCSC. Upon calling PSCSC to initiate a
discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that PSCSC wanted to be “taken off
the list” of potential partners.
106
Reliant Energy Commission
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



PO Box 1484
Houston, TX 77251-1484
(713) 207-7521
(713) 207-9272
Dan Howell
Network Planner
dan.howell@reliantenergy.com
www.reliantenergy.com
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to RELIANT. Upon calling RELIANT to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that RELIANT wanted to
be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
107
TECO Energy, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



702 North Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 228-1111 ext. 41523
Michelle Briggs
Sales Department
-
Synopsis
TECO Energy, Inc. (“TECO”) spoke with Geo-Matrix David Nissen and left a message with
Dana Veitch regarding their interest in the SURA project. Due to the fact their network is so
small and only reaches one college, they feel there isn’t an opportunity to pursue further
discussion on the SURA initiative.
108
Telergy
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating


One Telergy Parkway
East Syracuse, NY 13057
(315) 362-2870
Barry Vaughn
Regional Sales
-
Synopsis
Telergy’s response was very enthusiastic and they planned to attend the workshop in North
Carolina on April 4, 2001 to explore a possible role for them pertaining to the initiative. They
wanted to find a way to participate and thought there was a benefit since they had previous
experiences working with universities and academic communities in the northeast region of the
country.
They were not sure what assets they could use for the SURA region, since all their services were
purchased managed services from other network providers. Telergy reported that they were
working on a business opportunity that might expand their coverage into a region of the SURA
footprint.
As it turns out, Telergy cancelled the trip to SURA’s sponsored workshop after acknowledging
that they lack telecommunication assets in the SURA region. Telergy wants to stay “in the loop”
respecting the SURA initiative. They are hopeful that, as the initiative migrates to other regions
of the country, they will have the opportunity to participate.
At this time, Geo-Matrix does not recommend a follow-up meeting with Telergy.
109
Tennessee Valley Authority
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



TVA, PO Box 292409
Nashville, TN 37229-2409
(615) 232-6822
(615) 232-6828
John Brockman
Manager, Telecom and Energy Management Services
jjbrockmam@tva.gov
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Tennessee Valley. Upon calling Tennessee
Valley to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Tennessee
Valley wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
110
Texas-New Mexico Power Company
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



4100 International Plaza
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
(917) 731-0099
Mike Miller
Vice President Retail
-
Synopsis
During a telephone interview on May 16, 2001, it was determined that Texas New Mexico
Power Company (TNP) is not in the fiber business and does not offer network services.
Geo-Matrix does not recommend pursuit of TNP for this reason.
111
TXU Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating



2900 Longmire Drive, Suite A
College Station, TX 77845
(979) 695-5000
Mike Miller
Director of Industry Services
-
Synopsis
The SURA initiative package was received by TXU Communications (”TXU”). However,
numerous telephone calls made to TXU have gone, largely, unanswered. When Geo-Matrix has
talked with Mr. Miller, he has been very busy and unable to talk. Several emails to Mr. Miller
have also gone unanswered. Nonetheless, Geo-Matrix feels this company, which is part of the
largest electrical utility in Texas, will offer interest and opportunity to the SURA initiative. GeoMatrix awaits a response from SURA as to whether or not a face-to-face meeting is desirable.
TXU is one of seven companies that Geo-Matrix has identified in the Conclusion section of this
Phase II Report as not having a fair opportunity to address and respond to the SURA initiative.
In the Conclusion, Geo-Matrix asked SURA for direction on what Phase II meetings, if any,
SURA would like Geo-Matrix to pursue. During the weekly SURA/Geo-Matrix Conference Call
of June 1, 2001, SURA asked that Geo do all that it can to conclude any Phase II telephone calls,
face-to-face meetings and reports prior to the June 15, 2001 cut-off established for these
companies.
112
Oil and Gas Pipeline Companies
Chevron
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
575 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 894-3232
Zoraida Egan
Administrative Assistant
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Chevron. Upon calling Chevron to initiate
a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Chevron wanted to be “taken
off the list” of potential partners.
113
Dixie Gas & Oil Corporation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
PO Box 900
Verona, VA 24482
(540) 248-6273
(540) 248-2524
Chris Airheart
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Dixie Gas & Oil Corporation (“Dixie”).
Upon calling Dixie to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
Dixie wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
114
Duke Energy
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
(704) 382-3737
Leonard Gatewood
Senior VP, Strategic Planning and Development
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Duke Energy. Upon calling Duke Energy to
initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that Duke Energy wanted
to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
115
El Paso (Gas) Global Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 420-6422
Greg Jenkins
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to El Paso Global Networks. Upon calling El
Paso Global Networks to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised
that El Paso Global Networks wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
116
Keyspan Communications
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary



Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
201 Old Country Road, 3rd Floor
Melville, NY 11747
(515) 512-7518
Rudy Winter
Vice President, Business Development
-
Contact
Information
Partner
Package

Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
Analysis
Matrix
Rating
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Keyspan Communications. Upon calling
Keyspan Communications to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was
advised that Keyspan Communications wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
117
Railroads
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
3 Commercial Place
Norfolk, VA 23510
(757) 629-2600
Charles Moorman
President, Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications
-
Synopsis
There has been no response to the SURA Package sent to Norfolk Southern Corporation
(“NSC”). Upon calling NSC to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was
advised that NSC wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
118
Union Pacific Railroad
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68179
(402) 280-6725
Perly Schoville
Business Development
-
Synopsis
There was no response to the SURA Package sent to Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”). Upon
calling UPRR to initiate a discussion on the SURA initiative, Geo-Matrix was advised that
UPRR wanted to be “taken off the list” of potential partners.
119
State Governments
Alabama Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

1409 Coliseum Boulevard, H-102
Montgomery, AL 36130-0001
(334) 242-6474
(334) 262-8041
Randy Braden
Permit Engineer
www.dot.state.al.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Alabama DOT.
During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the State of Alabama expressed no interest at this
time. They do not currently have any fiber and do not plan to install any fiber in the near future.
Alabama DOT uses existing local phone lines for their fiber connection.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Fiber optic lines have not been installed on Interstate highway ROW in Alabama
or on any other controlled access Federal-aid highway ROW. The Division
Office has been monitoring ALDOT activities in this regard and providing
education.”
120
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

State Highway Department Building
10324 Interstate 30
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 569-2438
(501) 569-2400
Bryan Stewart
CIO
www.ahtd.state.ar.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Arkansas State
Highway and Transportation Department (“AHTD”). During the discussion of the SURA
initiative, the State of Arkansas expressed no interest at this time. They are currently working
with an engineering firm to develop their fiber optic strategy utilizing their highways. They are
also developing a Fiber Optic Agreement.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Lines have been installed on some Interstates (I-40 across state; I-30 from Little
Rock to Hope; I-540 MO line to Ft. Smith through tunnel facility, I-430 from I-40
to I-30 and on I-55). All lines installed near fence line, with pull boxes outside
access line at each interchange. AHTD has access to each pull box, and are
assigned space/lines at each regeneration site in exchange.”
121
Delaware Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

Bay Road, Route 113
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 760-2253
(302) 739-5736
John Fiori
www.state.de.us/deldot
Synopsis
After numerous attempts to contact Mr. Fiori, on April 21, 2001 Geo-Matrix conducted a
telephone interview with the Delaware Department of Transportation (“DelDOT”). During the
discussion of the SURA initiative, Mr. Fiori indicated that this was not his area of responsibility.
He agreed to forward the SURA Package to the traffic section and have the individual assigned
to the SURA project call. To date, no further discussions have occurred with DelDOT.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“[Fiber optic] Lines have not been installed on Interstate highway R/W in
Delaware or on any other controlled access Federal-aid highway R/W.”
122
District of Columbia, Department of Public Works
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
Reeves Center
2000 14th Street NW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20009-4473
(202) 671-2333
(202) 671-0642
Lars Etzkorn
Associate Director, Public Right of Way Center
www.publicworks.ci.washington.dc.us/cgi-local
Synopsis
After numerous attempts to contact Mr. Etzkorn, Geo-Matrix has not been able to conduct a
telephone interview with the District of Columbia.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“[Fiber optics] have not been installed on Interstate or other controlled-access
R/W in the District. There are installations on other NHS routes in the District.”
123
Florida Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Post 90
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
(850) 414-4980
(850) 488-5526
Chester Chandler
ITS Manager
www.dot.state.fl.us
Synopsis
On April 22, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Florida DOT. During
the discussion of the SURA initiative, the State of Florida expressed an interest in partnering
with SURA to utilize their limited access highways. Presently, Florida Fiber Networks has a
non-exclusive lease for limited access highways for the creation of a private network for
commercial telecommunications services in the State of Florida. Any proposal by SURA to use
limited access highway ROW will require all activities to be coordinated with Florida Fiber
Network (see Florida DOT letter and news release in the SURA Phase II Report Supplementals).
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Fiber has been installed on Interstate highway R/W and other controlled access
Federal-aid highway R/W in Florida on a limited basis by the Florida DOT to
support ITS initiatives in urban areas. FDOT received and awarded a contract to
Florida Fiber Inc. (FFN) to place fiber optic lines in all limited access highways in
Florida. The Florida Division treated the installation as if it were a utility under
our Utility Accommodation Agreement with FDOT. However, FHWA
concurrence was required with the lease agreement because the UAM called for a
permit and the lease was an exception to that policy. The current UAM prohibits
longitudinal installation of utilities. Concerns about the environment were
addressed throughout the process. Subsequently, FFN has not provided FDOT
with the required financial plans and other resource commitments that they agreed
to and FDOT has now written them a letter declaring FFN in default of the
agreement and giving them 90 days to submit the required and promised
materials.”
124
Georgia Technology Authority (GTA)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30303-3404
(404) 463-2300
Larry Singer
CIO and Executive Director
-
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Georgia Technology
Authority (GTA). GTA has determined that the Board of Regents will have jurisdiction over this
matter and has asked that Geo-Matrix send another SURA initiative package to Mr. James
Flowers for his review. A SURA Package was sent to Mr. Flowers, but to date, no further
discussions have occurred with GTA.
125
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

State Office Building
501 High Street, Room 153
Frankfort, KY 40622
(502) 564-4890
(502) 379-1851
Larry Britton
Communications Coordinator
www.kytc.state.ky.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet. During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet expressed an interest in meeting with Geo-Matrix to discuss partnering
opportunities between the State of Kentucky and SURA. Geo-Matrix recommends a face-to-face
interview during Phase III of the SURA project.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Lines have not been installed on Interstate highway R/W in Kentucky or on any
other controlled access Federal-aid highway R/W in the State, except for some
that have been installed solely for highway use -- no resource sharing involved.
The State is currently considering the use of the R/W by others.”
126
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

State Office Building
Office of Telecom Management
150 3rd Street, 12th Floor
Baton Rogue, LA 70802
(225) 342 7701
Bud Lanier
Director of Telecom Management
www.dotd.state.la.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development (“LDOTD”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative,
the LDOTD expressed an interest in receiving a proposal from SURA outlining the project
including a discussion on using their ROW. Geo-Matrix recommends a face-to-face interview
during Phase III of the SURA project.
Presently, LDOTD has been soliciting proposals from telecom companies to use their ROW.
Global Access Communications intends to install fiber across the entire state and in return, the
State of Louisiana will be provided a 10 GIG system for their use.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Fiber-optic cables can be placed along non-controlled access freeways at no
charge to the utility. Along controlled access freeways and Interstate highways
fiber-optic lines can be placed for a charge of $5,000 per mile (a one time charge).
This charge may be waived in return for shared resources. The LDOTD published
a Rule for Fiber Optic Permits in the Louisiana Register on December 20, 1999
allowing fiber-optic lines and for resource sharing of the lines. LDOTD will ask
for resources for their use in any agreement. Money obtained from this endeavor
will be deposited in the Right of Way Permit Processing Fund. There are eight
companies installing lines along Interstates as of April 1, 2001.”
127
Maryland Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

10 Elm Road
Baltimore-Washington International Airport, MD 21240
(410) 865-1040
(410) 865-1385
Chuck Bristow
Chief Technology Officer
www.mdot.state.md.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Maryland Department
of Transportation (“MDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the MDOT decided
that they would defer all questions to the Maryland Department of Budget & Management
(“MDBM”). (See separate report on the Maryland Department of Budget and Management and
letter from the MDOT included in the SURA Phase II Report Supplementals.).
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“[Fiber optic] Lines have been installed on Interstate R/W in Maryland on I-70, I83, I-95, I-270, I-295, and I-695, but have not been installed on any other
controlled access Federal-aid highway R/W in Maryland. The State received
conduit, fibers and monetary compensation. On approximately 685 total miles,
cables were installed in the median, under the right hand shoulder, and beyond the
right hand shoulder. All locations were within the R/W. Access is from the
mainline. The Maryland Division and Region 3 offices worked with MSHA,
providing guidance and approving the installations.”
128
Maryland Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

45 Calvert Street
Annapolis MD 21401
(410) 260-7226
Preston Dillard
CIO
www.dbm.state.md.us
Synopsis
Mr. Dillard’s office is responsible for all fiber issues in the State of Maryland for the MDOT and
the MDBM.
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix held a telephone interview with the MDOT. After a lengthy
discussion with Chuck Bristow, Chief Information Officer for MDOT, it was decided that they
would defer to the MDBM for use of their fiber policy. (See letter enclosed in this report.)
Additional follow-up calls were made after this call. These calls have resulted in Geographic
Network Affiliates International, Inc. (“Geo”), one of the parent companies to Geo-Matrix,
becoming involved in these SURA related discussions.
Independent of, but complementary to, the SURA initiative, Geo is engaged in its own
discussions with the MDBM. These discussions center on the State of Maryland’s strong desire
for a new international cable landing station on the Maryland Atlantic Ocean shore. These
discussions can assist SURA by leveraging the State’s desire for this landing with the fulfillment
of SURA needs within Maryland. Thus, even though Geo-Matrix has received a letter from
MDBM stating they would be interested in meeting with SURA (see also enclosed letter from
MDBM), Connie McDonnell, the MDBM Chief Technology Officer has represented to Geo that
it will consider SURA’s needs as she and others within the MDBM and MDOT consider the
economic development and network goals of the aforementioned cable landing.
Geo-Matrix recommends that, before any meeting between the State of Maryland and SURA
takes place, SURA contact Geo to ensure that SURA garners the most beneficial State of
Maryland opportunities available to it.
129
Mississippi Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

401 N. West Street, Room 157
Jackson, MS 39201
(601) 359-7001
(601) 359-7050
Diane Martin
www.mdot.state.ms.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Mississippi
Department of Transportation (“MDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the
State of Mississippi expressed no interest at this time. They do not currently have any fiber and
do not plan to install any fiber in the near future. MDOT uses Bell South services to provide for
all their communication needs.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Lines have not been installed on Interstate highway R/W in Mississippi, except
for a very minor amount on the Gulf Coast. Fiber-optic lines have been
installed……on many non-Interstate 4 lane and 2 lane highways. No resource
sharing has been involved. MDOT people are of the opinion that the same people
who pay the rates are the same people who pay for the highway, and the utility
company would just pass the cost of any remuneration back to the public.
Accommodation of the Interstate fiber- optic lines has been by a year-to-year
permit for the last 6-7 years because the utility hasn't been able to buy R/W and
move. Utilities locations are usually limited to the last five feet of R/W limits if
possible. The Division Office advises MDOT whenever asked and only see the
permits that deal with utilities crossing the Interstate.”
130
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

Division of Highways
One South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 233-9331
Kelly Hutchinson
State Highway Administrator
www.dot.state.nc.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the
State of North Carolina indicated that no private fiber is allowed on limited access highways
within the state. The State of North Carolina has fiber available for its own needs and is in the
process of constructing additional networks. Presently, they are not prepared to allow outside
telecom companies onto state ROW.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Lines have not been installed on Interstate or on any other fully controlled access
highways in North Carolina. There have been some installations on partial
controlled or limited access routes. No compensation was received for these
installations. They were all installed near the R/W line and are to be accessed
from existing access points or ramps/frontage roads, etc. - not from the mainline.”
131
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

200 North East 21st Street, Room 1C6
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 522-6000
Mike Mayberry
Director of Administrator
www.okladot.state.ok.us
Synopsis
After numerous attempts to contact Mr. Buddy Kidd, Information Services Administrator for the
Oklahoma Department of Transportation (“OklaDOT”), on April 27, 2001 Geo-Matrix finally
conducted a telephone interview with OklaDOT. During the discussion of the SURA initiative,
Mr. Kidd indicated that Mike Mayberry was the appropriate contact for the State of Oklahoma.
Mr. Mayberry was very interested in the SURA initiative and Geo-Matrix agreed to forward a
SURA initiative Package to him for review. To date, no further discussions have occurred with
OklaDOT.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Oklahoma currently has a fiber-optic facility in place that begins at the
Texas/Oklahoma State Line and extends to Oklahoma City along Interstate
Highway 35. The facility continues along Interstate Highway 44 to the
Missouri/Oklahoma State Line. The Transportation Commission was the
Authoritative body that granted an exception to current policy. The facility was
placed under the supervision of the Department of Transportation. Resource
sharing was a factor in the agreement to place this facility within Interstate
Highway R/W. The facility was placed at no cost to the State. The State received
exclusive use of 12 fibers (4 Lighted). The State would not be responsible for the
maintenance of the facility.
All future costs associated with Highway
Construction requiring relocation would be born by the company. Traffic
Engineering Division is currently working on the placement of a Fiber Optic
facility along a route that involves various Interstate Highway Rights- of- Way
that are associated with the [State’s] future Intelligent Transportation System.”
132
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

Silas N. Pearman Building
955 Park Street
Columbia, SC 29202
(803) 737-1302
(803) 737-2038
Robert Probst
Director of Strategic Planning & Administration
chasec@dot.state.sc.us
www.dot.state.sc.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the South Carolina
Department of Transportation (“SCDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative, the
SCDOT expressed an interest in receiving a proposal from SURA outlining the SURA initiative,
including a discussion on the use of their ROW. Geo-Matrix recommends a face-to-face
interview during Phase III of the SURA project. Presently, SCDOT has been soliciting proposals
from telecom companies to use their ROW (see letter from the SCDOT in the SURA Phase II
Report Supplementals.).
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“With the exception of a Southern Bell fiber optic cable crossing of the Cooper
River on the I-526 bridge in Charleston, the SCDOT has not allowed the
installation of privately owned fiber optic lines within the R/W of any controlled
access facility. In return for allowing the Cooper River crossing in the early
1990's, the SCDOT received fibers from the bridge site to the District office for
use in the operation of a Fog Detection and Warning System. The SCDOT has
installed and owns approximately 50 miles of fiber optic cable along portions of I85, I-77, and I-26 for operation of freeway management components in the
Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, Rock Hill, and Charleston urban areas. The
SCDOT put out an RFP for a Statewide Shared Resource Contract (fiber-optics)
on Oct. 26, 2000. They are currently evaluating the responses.”
133
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

700 James K. Polk Building
5th and Deaderick (Street
Nashville, TN 37243-0349
(615) 741-0870
(615) 741-2508
David Doyle
Director Information Technology
www.tdot.state.tn.us
Synopsis
After numerous attempts to contact Mr. William Moore, Chief Engineer for the Tennessee
Department of Transportation (“TDOT”), on April 21, 2001 Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone
interview with TDOT. During the discussion of the SURA initiative, Mr. Moore indicated that
this was not his area of responsibility. He agreed to forward the SURA initiative Package onto
David Doyle, Director of Information Technology Division, Department of Finance and
Administration. Thereafter, Mr. Doyle also indicated that this was not his area of responsibility
and passed the SURA initiative Package onto Bradley Dugger.
Presently, the State of Tennessee is trying to consolidate all education networks within the state
and would like to meet with Geo-Matrix to discuss SURA’s initiative. Geo-Matrix recommends
a face-to-face interview during Phase III of the SURA project.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“The first [and only] application of fiber-optic lines on Interstate highways in
Tennessee was by the Division Office on 9-22-97 and involved the I-55 Bridge in
Memphis. Actual installation has not commenced as of 4-2000. No longitudinal
fiber-optic lines have been permitted along any other controlled access facilities
in the State. TDOT will receive the exclusive use of six(6) unlighted fiber lines
on the I-55 Bridge installation. The lines are to be installed along the outside of
the bridge structure, but no direct access will be allowed from the through
roadway or ramps for initial placement or future servicing of the fiber optic lines.
The Division Office has been instrumental in forwarding legal and operational
guideline publications, as well as current informational material, to TDOT
management. [TDOT] conducted a one-day joint seminar with TDOT officials
134
and representatives of Apogee Research, Inc. and the Missouri DOT on 11-1996.”
135
Texas Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

Dewitt C. Greer Highway Building
125 E. 11th and Brazos Streets
Austin, TX 78701-2483
(512) 416-3301
Richard Kirby
Director of Maintenance Operations
www.dot.state.tx.us
Synopsis
On March 28, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Texas Department of
Transportation (“TxDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative, TxDOT indicated that
they presently do not have a fiber optic network, but the Governor has approved a study to
determine telecom plans and policies for the state. TxDOT anticipates the study to take 6-12
months to complete. TxDOT is aggressively looking at telecom opportunities and partners.
Geo-Matrix recommends a face-to-face interview during Phase III of the SURA project.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Lines have been installed on Texas Interstate highway R/W and on other
controlled access Federal-aid highway R/W in accordance with the TxDOT
Utility Accommodation Manual. These lines have been installed by companies
that are considered utilities, and no resource sharing has taken place as yet. No
compensation was received since the companies had a right to occupy the right of
way. These fiber optic lines are located outside the frontage roads, outside the
clear zone near the R/W line. They will be maintained from the frontage roads
and side streets. Texas has an extensive system of frontage roads along the
Interstate…….and utilities are generally located between the frontage road and
R/W line along these highways. The Division has not had any involvement in
these lines since they are approved by TxDOT using permit procedures. Resource
sharing efforts are well underway, with rulemaking procedures underway. A pilot
implementation effort will then follow as a need is identified. Comments:
TXDOT is currently considering installing a fiber-optic cable between Odessa and
El Paso in the median.”
136
Virginia Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

1401 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-2035
(804) 786-6677
J. R. Robinson
Information Technology Director
www.vdot.state.va.us
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the Virginia Department of
Transportation (“VDOT”). Presently, Digital Teleport, Inc (“DTI”) is constructing a 1,300-mile
route on limited access highways within Virginia. (See separate Phase II report on DTI.) Any
proposal by SURA to use limited access highway ROW will require all activities to be
coordinated with Digital Teleport, Inc.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Fiber-optic lines have not been installed on Interstate highway R/W in Virginia
or on any other Federal-Aid highway R/W in the State as part of Resource
Sharing. However, an agreement is in the works for 1,200 miles of fibers to be
installed. Fiber-optic lines have been installed in Northern Virginia for VDOT's
traffic management system but this is not a part of resource sharing. Virginia
plans to receive fiber infrastructure as compensation. More specifically, they will
receive 18 fibers on 1,300 miles of rural Interstate, and 48 fibers on 148 miles of
urban Interstate. It is VDOT's intention to locate these facilities far enough off
the edge of pavement where access would not be a problem. The fibers must be
placed so as not to interfere with the safe operation of the highways. The
preferred location is to the right of the travel lanes, possibly outside of the clear
zone or near the R/W line; however, fibers will not be located in the median.”
Notwithstanding the above information from the FHWA, Geo-Matrix is aware that Level
(3) Communications used VDOT Interstate highway and a Potomac River crossing ROW
(both I-495) for its multi-conduit network from Maryland to its POP in Tyson’s Corner,
VA.
137
West Virginia Department of Transportation
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

East Capitol Complex, Building 5
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, Room 109
Charlestown, WV 25305-0440
(304) 558-0444
(304) 558-4076
Fred Van Kirk
Secretary of Transportation
www.state.wv.us/wvdot
Synopsis
On April 23, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with the West Virginia
Department of Transportation (“WVDOT”). During the discussion of the SURA initiative,
WVDOT expressed no interest at this time. They do not currently have any fiber and they do not
plan to install any fiber in the near future.
Upon review of the “Resource Sharing State-by-State Status Report, Update April 2001” (refer
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – FHWA – website
under Real Estate Programs; www.fhwa.dot.gov///realestate/utilsr.htm), Geo-Matrix was able to
ascertain the following information:
“Fiber optic lines have not been installed on Interstate highway R/W in West
Virginia or on any other controlled access Federal-aid highway R/W.”
138
Equipment Vendors
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Contact
Information
Partner
Package


Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Telephone
Interview
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary


Analysis
Matrix
Rating
-
Synopsis
The contact that we had for Cisco has left the company and a replacement has not been located.
As a result, at this time Geo-Matrix must consider Cisco as not being capable of adequately
responding to the SURA initiative.
139
Lucent Technologies
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

(336) 279-6972
James Ray
jamesray@lucent.com
-
Synopsis
On April 19, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with Lucent Technologies.
During the interview, Geo-Matrix provided Lucent Technologies with an overview of the SURA
initiative. Lucent Technologies’ responses were all very positive and they indicated their level
of interest is high regarding their participation with the SURA member universities and colleges.
Lucent Technologies representatives attended the SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on
April 26, 2001, where they were encouraged to meet with SURA to show them what Lucent
Technologies can offer in the way of assistance in the project.
140
Marconi Communications
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

(919) 474-5020
Ron Walker
ron.walker@marconi.com
-
Synopsis
On April 19, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with Marconi. During the
interview, Geo-Matrix provided Marconi with an overview of the SURA initiative. Marconi’s
responses were all very positive and they indicated that their level of interest is high regarding
their participation with the SURA member universities and colleges. Marconi attended the
SURA Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001, where they were encouraged to
meet with SURA to show them what Marconi can offer in the way of assistance in the project.
141
Nortel Networks
Contact
Information
Partner
Package
Telephone
Interview



Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Contact Person:
Title:
Email Address:
Internet Address:
Face-toface
Interview
Follow-up
Interview
NonResponsive
Report
Executive
Summary
Analysis
Matrix
Rating

(919) 997-5186 & (919) 992-9034
Michael Coleman & Sam Jackson
colemanm@nortelnetworks.com
-
Synopsis
On March 18, 2001, Geo-Matrix conducted a telephone interview with Nortel. During the
interview, Geo-Matrix provided Nortel with an overview of the SURA initiative. Nortel’s
responses were all very positive and they indicated that their level of interest is high regarding
their participation with the SURA member universities and colleges. Nortel attended the SURA
Vendor Workshop in North Carolina on April 26, 2001, where they were encouraged to meet
with SURA to show them what Nortel can offer in the way of assistance in the project.
142
Eliminated Companies
Telecommunication, CATV and Construction Companies
Able Telecom Holding Corporation – a subsidiary of Adesta Communications
American Metrocom – bankrupt
Caprock Communications – recently acquired by McLeodUSA, Inc.
C3 Communications – part of AEP
Carolina Fiber Network – part of Dominion Telecom, Inc.
GTE – GTE and Bell Atlantic merged in 1998 to form Verizon
IDT – has no fiber optic network
Kinnet – no longer exists
Koch Industries – see Velocita
NEON (New Era of Networks) – software company-no fiber
Splitrock Communications – recently acquired by McLeodUSA, Inc.
Verio – not in the fiber business
Electrical Power Utilities and Authorities
Georgia Power Company – subsidiary of Southern Company Services, Inc.
Southern Company Services, Inc. – subsidiary of Southern Telecommunications
Dominion Virginia Power (formerly Virginia Power and Light) – division of Dominion (see
Dominion Telecom)
Oil and Gas Pipeline Companies
Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KN Energy) – not in the fiber business
Plantation Propane & Petroleum – not in the fiber business
Shell Energy Services – not in the fiber business
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. (pipeline) – subsidiary of Duke Energy
Railroads
Southern Pacific Railroad – taken over by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
143
6. Rating System of Potential Partners
Geo-Matrix had determined that 138 potential partners existed for SURA to consider for
partnering to successfully achieve their goals of a regional infrastructure network. This list was
reduced to 119 after 19 companies were found to not be in the fiber industry, bankrupt, a
subsidiary of another fiber company, or no longer in business.
To aid Geo-Matrix in evaluating the remaining 119 potential partners, Geo-Matrix used the
Analysis Matrix method for determining the best potential partners for the SURA initiative. The
Analysis Matrix is a fair system for ranking solutions (a list of potential partners) to a problem (a
regional infrastructure network solution) because interviewer feelings and emotions as well as
hard data, numbers and facts are considered. A set of criteria is selected which represents the
critical elements tailored to the goals of the SURA initiative project. The following is a list of
the critical comparison criteria:










Corporate operations – includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations
throughout the continental US, particularly the southeastern sector.
Corporate stability – the current financial stability of the company in relationship to the
existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry and the stock market and its
ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
Corporate experience – years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network
solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior management’s breadth of
experience in the telecommunications industry.
Business strategies – validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3
and/or 5 year business plans.
Research and development – level of importance of research and development to the
company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
Terms and flexibility in negotiations – ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at
reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
Willingness to participate – degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think
of, present, and deal with out-of-the-box solutions.
Physical attributes and coverage – level of coverage across the SURA footprint and the
degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
Capability to meet SURA needs – ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2)
fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for research and development purposes.
Intangibles – the interviewer’s perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs
of SURA.
The Geo-Matrix team chose this methodology for ranking the potential partners because the team
could add, substitute, delete and modify criteria as required. In the matrix, the potential partners
are listed on the left with the comparison criteria and weights listed in the desired criteria
columns. After reviewing each of the criteria, each potential partner was evaluated on how well
they satisfied the criteria and each was quantified by using the numbers on the bottom of the
form. A rating scale of 1 for unsatisfactory, 2 for questionable, 3 for acceptable, 4 for strong and
5 for superior was used.
144
The number assigned by Geo-Matrix for the criteria was placed in the upper half of the square
and multiplied with the relative weight for the criteria and placed in the lower half of the square.
The relative weights are evaluated from a rating scale of 1 for unimportant, 5 for relatively
important, and a 10 for extremely important. The products of the multiplications are summated
in the last column. Geo-Matrix was able to rank the score for the highest to the lowest with the
potential partner with the highest total satisfying the criteria best.
Geo-Matrix completed the Analysis Matrix with only telecommunication, CATV, construction,
electrical power companies and authorities. Gas and oil pipeline companies, railroads, and
equipment vendors were not analyzed because these companies and agencies do not deal in the
telecommunications from a dark fiber respective but are predominately right-of-way providers
offering unique network solutions for joint-build and fiber swapping scenarios. State
governments and Department of Transportation (DOT) offices to be pursued in Phase III with the
assistance of SURA.
***** INSERT ANALYSIS MATRIX *****
145
7. Recommendation of Top Potential Partners
After rating and sorting the Analysis Matrix, the following 15 potential partners were determined
by Geo-Matrix to provide the best network solutions to satisfy SURA’s network needs:
Company
Total
284
279
258
256
252
251
249
249
247
246
243
242
241
239
237
Level(3) Communications
Touch America, Inc.
ClearStream Communications
Global Crossing (Frontier)
Aerie Networks
AT&T Broadband … AT&T
Southern Telecommunications
Americas Fiber Network (AFN) Communications
Old Dominion Telecom, Inc.
MCI WorldCom
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia
Florida Power & Light
Velocita (PF.NET)
Teleglobe, Inc.
Progress Telecom
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Difference
5
21
2
4
1
2
0
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
Geo-Matrix provides a thorough analysis and set of recommendations regarding the above 15
Potential Partners on a “Top 15 Analysis Form” completed for each Partner that follows Section
7 of the SURA RII Initiative Report. Among the important highlights, observations and
recommendations of these forms are the common Top 15 characteristics of:
-
A willingness to think “out-of-the-box” and/or be flexible. A willingness to think “outof-the-box” and/or be flexible in its negotiations with SURA is found in 13 of the top 15
Potential Partners. This includes the “Willingness to Participate” component of the Analysis
Matrix, which has the greatest value to the SURA RII Initiative. It is for this reason that
Geo-Matrix gave this category (and the category of “Terms and Flexibility in Negotiations”)
the high scoring weights of 10 and 7 in the Analysis Matrix. Note that 13 of the top 15 are
considered either “superior” or “strong” in this category, with only Southern Telecom and
Florida Power & Light getting the next lower rating of “acceptable”. Standouts in this
category are Level 3, Aerie Networks and Old Dominion Telecom. Top 15 companies that
may have a problem presenting this quality are MCIWorldcom and AT&T, though lately
AT&T appears to have changed for the better.
When judging this category, Geo-Matrix, among other things, looked for a potential
partner’s proactive persistent efforts in trying to contact and/or meet with Geo-Matrix and/or
SURA to discuss, pursue and respond to the SURA RII Initiative. As an example, many (10
Potential Partners) took the time and spent the money to attend the SURA Vendor Workshop
in North Carolina on April 26, 2001.
Complementary to this is the Analysis Matrix category of “Terms and Flexibility in
Negotiations”. All 15 were rated either “acceptable” or higher, with much of the lower
company numbers in this rating resulting from a company’s inability to structure terms that
146
meet SURA’s needs, as opposed to any lack of flexibility on their part. It is interesting to
note that Level 3, long perceived as unbending in their terms with customers, received a
“strong” rating in this category. In these tough economic times, Level 3 appears to be
changing for the better.
-
Unique and quality rights-of-way (“ROW”) to SURA members. Unique and quality
ROW to SURA member universities can be found in 10 of the recommended top 15. This is
a result of the fact that of the 15 Potential Partners, six are utilities or have utility
partnerships or backing. In addition, AT&T and MCI have an abundance of valuable quality
ROWs, whereby two of our recommended partners (Velocita and Touch America) have the
strategic ability to use AT&T’s ROW in addition to AT&T’s use.
-
Experience with and an appreciation of the needs of the educational community.
SURA, and its members, will be pleased to note that over half (eight) of the top 15
recommended Partners have had some experience with and have an appreciation of the
needs of the educational community. These eight are worthy of specific mention as such
experience, appreciation and history of participation with the educational community, and,
in many cases, with both SURA and specific members of SURA, influenced greatly GeoMatrix’s decision to include them as part of the top 15 Potential Partners. Therefore the
eight standouts in this category are; Clearstream, Global Crossing, AT&T, Old Dominion,
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Velocita, Teleglobe and Progress Telecom.
-
Financial and business stability. Business and economic stability is indeed a trait that is
difficult to find in today’s current uncertain business environment of financially troubled
telecommunication companies and ventures. Because there are so many telecoms in trouble,
it should not come as a surprise to SURA that some of our top 15 (four in particular)
Potential Partners are or are soon to be financially challenged in meeting either their revenue
targets or making payments on debt or both. In judging the top 15 Potential Partners in this
category, Geo-Matrix took into consideration how a problem in this area might be used as a
useful “tool” with that Partner that SURA could leverage for its benefit. It is partly because
of this ability to leverage this deficiency that Geo-Matrix gave this category a relatively low
scoring weight of 5 in the Analysis Matrix.
Nonetheless, we can thankfully say that six to seven of our recommended top 15 are
considered stable and well funded. These six are AT&T, Touch America, Southern
Telecom, Old Dominion Telecom, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Progress
Telecom. The seventh company may be Clearstream, but due to Non-disclosure issues with
Clearstream it is difficult for Geo-Matrix for make a judgment in this area and thus
Clearstream received the rating of “acceptable” in this category.
Complementary to this is the Analysis Matrix category of “Business Strategies”, which is an
examination of the validity and prudence of the top 15 Partner’s business plans, both current
and projected. Here Geo-Matrix gave this category the relatively low scoring weight of 4 in
the Analysis Matrix because, in today’s ever-changing economic times, a business plan
(good or bad) may not, in and of itself, be the best test of a company’s strength and viability.
Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that this category received some of the lowest
ratings of any category with no one company receiving a “superior” rating, with one
147
company (Aerie Networks) even receiving the lowest rating of the top 15 of any category “questionable”.
-
Dark fiber/wavelength/POP space sales strength. This new, and hopefully, growing
segment of the telecommunication industry’s portfolio of sales offerings is found in one
third (five) of our top 15 Potential Partners. Standouts in this category are Level 3 and Aerie
Networks. A sixth company may be Clearstream, but due to Non-disclosure issues with
Clearstream it is difficult for Geo-Matrix to make a thorough judgment in this area.
Nonetheless, Geo-Matrix did give Clearstream a rating of “superior” in this category.
This low percentage should not be surprising to SURA considering how new this segment of
the sales market is. The ability to not offer these services and still be recommended by GeoMatrix as part of the top 15 Potential Partners is a demonstration of the fact that the
remaining nine have other just-as-valuable traits that Geo-Matrix feels confident pave the
way towards a positive relationship with SURA, with a corresponding ability to capture
these needed services in other ways. For example, two of these just-as-valuable traits are the
aforementioned qualities of “willingness to participate” and “flexibility”.
Complementary to this is the Analysis Matrix category of “Capacity to Meet SURA Needs”
found to be rated either “superior” or “strong” in 11 or the 15, with only AT&T,
MCIWorldcom, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Teleglobe getting the next
lower rating of “acceptable”.
-
Network mix of long haul and metro. The quality network mix of both long haul and
metro network in any one Partner can be found in four to five of the top 15 Potential
Partners. The four best examples of this are Level 3, AT&T, MCIWorldcom and Florida
Power & Light. The fact that 10 Partners, without this network mix, made the top 15
underscores the fact that very few Potential Partners interviewed by Geo-Matrix had this
network mix. This reinforces the Geo-Matrix recommended concept that SURA partner
with several of the Potential Partners so that there is a good balance of SURA Partners, i.e.
ones that can focus on SURA’s long haul network needs while, at the same time, other
Partners can focus on SURA’s metro network needs.
It is interesting to note that, partly because some top 15 Potential Partners sensed this SURA
need, three of the top 15 expressed a willingness to partner with other Providers to help
address SURA needs. Progress Telecom is a good example of a Potential Partner who is
looking for a partner or partners to help fulfill SURA’s network needs.
Complementary to this is the Analysis Matrix category of “Physical Attributes/Coverage”.
The physical geographic coverage of a Potential Partners’ network within the SURA
footprint was found to be of enough interest to SURA that a separate detailed matrix was
created to indicate how Geo-Matrix rated the geographic coverage of each Potential
Partner’s network as it relates to the overall SURA footprint. Please examine the below
matrix on “Coverage”. In this matrix most of the top 15 were rated “strong”, with only four
- Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Florida Power & Light, Teleglobe and Progress
Telecom - getting the next lower rating of “acceptable”. Of the top 15, only Level 3
received the top rating of “superior”.
148
The top 15 potential partners were analyzed for their coverage over the SURA footprint as
follows.
Ranking
Company
Total
Network
Coverage
State
Network
Coverage
Rating
of
Coverage
(Worldwide)
(SURA Footprint)
(SURA Footprint)
1 = Unsatisfactory
1 = Unsatisfactory
1 = Unsatisfactory
2 = Questionable
2 = Questionable
2 = Questionable
3 = Acceptable
3 = Acceptable
3 = Acceptable
4 = Strong
4 = Strong
4 = Strong
5 = Superior
5 = Superior
5 = Superior
1
Level (3) Communications
5
5 (DE,MD,VA,NC,SC,GA,FL,AL,TN,KY,LA,TX)
5 (network finished)
2
Touch America, Inc.
2
4 (will negotiate routes)
4 (network not finished)
3
ClearStream Communications
2
5 (AK,AL,DE,DC,FL,GA,KY,LA,MD,MS,SC,NC,OK,TN,TX,VA,WV)
4 (network under development)
4
Global Crossing (Frontier)
5
5 (AK,AL,DE,DC,FL,GA,KY,LA,MD,MS,SC,NC,OK,TN,TX,VA,WV)
4 (network finished)
5
Aerie Networks
2
5 (DE,MD,VA,NC,SC,GA,FL,AL,MS,LA,TX)
4 (network not started)
6
AT&T Broadband … AT&T
5
5 (AK,AL,DE,DC,FL,GA,KY,LA,MD,MS,SC,NC,OK,TN,TX,VA,WV)
4 (network lacks flexibility)
7
Southern Telecommunications
2
2 (AL, GA, FL)
4 (network not started)
8
America's Fiber Network (AFN) Communications
4
5 (DC,KY,MD,NC,VA,WV)
4 (network finished)
9
Old Dominion Telecom, Inc.
2
5 (MD,NC,TN,VA)
4 (network not finished, but expandable)
10
MCI WorldCom
5
5 (AK,AL,DE,DC,FL,GA,KY,LA,MD,MS,SC,NC,OK,TN,TX,VA,WV)
4 (network finished)
11
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia
2
(2 = GA)
3 (strong in 1 SURA state: GA)
12
Florida Power & Light
2
3 (FL)
3 (strong in 1 SURA state: FL)
13
Velocita (PF.Net)
2
5 (DE,MD,VA,NC,SC,GA,FL,AL,OK,LA,TX)
4 (network not finished)
14
Teleglobe, Inc.
4
4 (DC,FL,GA,NC,SC,TX)
3 (use of 3rd party networks)
15
Progress Telecom
3
3 (FL. GA, SC, NC, VA)
3 (Only 1/3 of SURA)
-
Ability for SURA to influence new builds. Though a lack of network can be identified as
a deficiency in eight of the top 15 Potential Partners, these eight are still recommended as
part of the top 15 Potential Partners primarily because most, if not all, of these eight Partners
have offered to allow SURA the ability to influence their new network build plans.
Standouts in this category are Level 3, Touch America, Aerie Networks, Old Dominion,
Velocita and Progress Telecom. This ability for SURA and its members to influence a
Partner’s new network build has been identified to Geo-Matrix as one of the ideal goals of
the SURA RII initiative.
-
Network in place. Complementary to, and not in conflict with, the above positive trait, are
those three of the top 15 Potential Partners that have completed networks available for
SURA’s immediate use that cover the entire SURA footprint. All three have the advantage
of being able to offer SURA, and its members, immediate SURA RII benefits without the
need to have to wait while some or all of desired network elements are constructed.
Standouts in this category are AT&T and MCIWorldcom.
Unfortunately, with network in place can come business plans and management expectations
that do not allow for flexibility and/or dark fiber/wavelength sales. This negative trait was
found in five of the top 15. Nonetheless, with the exception of Geo-Matrix concern over our
MCIWorldcom recommendation, we find that there is enough hope for change within these
companies that we can still confidently allow these companies to remain within the
recommended top 15.
149
As a final point, we will address the Analysis Matrix category of “Intangibles”, which is the
Geo-Matrix Team Member’s personal perception of the company in meeting or exceeding the
needs of SURA. Here the Potential Partners received the interviewer’s “gut” reaction to the
company they were interviewing, as well as factoring in any previous work or customer
experiences that the interviewer may have had with this company. Additionally, rather than
arbitrarily inserting that interviewer’s subjective judgments in this area, Geo-Matrix undertook a
thorough dialog within all of the Geo-Matrix Team Members in order to share and compare these
views and to relate any other supporting or non supporting experiences and facts to support
and/or challenge the interviewer’s impressions, both good and bad. At the end of this dialog a
final rating in this category was arrived at based on the mutual agreement of all Team Members.
Thus, in this category nine out of the top 15 received the highest rating of “superior”, meaning
that all Team Members were very impressed with and thought highly of these nine companies.
Five companies received a “strong” rating and only one company received the next lowest rating
of “acceptable” (AT&T). Complementary to this is the Analysis Matrix category of “Corporate
Experience” wherein all 15, with the exception of Old Dominion Telecom, were rated either
“superior”, “strong” or “acceptable”.
It is here that a few words about quality of company management is in order, as this was the
single most common discussion point in this category. Deficiencies of a weak or ineffective or
inexperienced middle management were perceived in three Partners (Level 3, Velocita and
MCIWorldcom) and also a weak or ineffective or inexperienced senior management was
perceived in three companies (AT&T, Southern Telecom and MCIWorldcom).
Finally, with respect to specific recommendations as to how to handle the opportunities
presented by the aforementioned top 15 Potential Partners, Geo-Matrix recommends that, in
addition to reading Section 9 “Conclusion” of the SURA RII Report, SURA read the specifics on
these recommendations located both at the end of each Top 15 Analysis Form on each company
and in the specific Executive Summery written on each company.
150
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Level 3 Communications
INTERVIEWER NAME: David Nissen
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
284
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
1
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Level 3 is willing to think “out-of-the-box” when considering SURA’s needs.
2.
Level 3 has a strong focus on the sale of dark fibers and other infrastructure assets.
3.
Network in place. In many SURA cities. Need not wait long before benefits realized.*
*For example, their ability to upgrade easily their fiber technology is a major strength. This is due to their high conduit counts.
4.
Quality staff willing to work with SURA and its members.
5.
Opportunities for SURA to joint build* plant and facilities in order to access bandwidth.
*Level (3) is comfortable with joint builds and has a proven formula for these undertakings.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
High debt & high interest payments is troubling. Revenues must pay down debt & is
missing targets. Level 3 must market & use its multi conduits.
2.
Level 3 paid too much to build their network and may have future trouble being cost
competitive with their competition.
`
3.
Historically, Level 3 is not flexible in its terms & in its negotiations.
4.
Actual execution of business agreements can fall short of expectations due to a .
weak middle management.
5.
Network equal access threat may exist under the provisions of 1996's Telecom Act.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
This is demonstrated by Level 3's many calls, emails & their attendance at the N.C. mtg. It is shown
by the CO mtgs they have attended and their openness with netw. info. & willingness to talk about
unique approaches* and network-altering solutions that benefit SURA.
* For example, unique is Level 3's use a special department to negotiate with SURA that has no responsibility to Level 3’s
fiscal revenues & is focused solely on long-term business relationships that are viewed important alliances to Level 3.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
45/5#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Extensive nationwide network of multiple conduits for long haul and metro builds. Many of the metro
builds are in major SURA region cities. Ability to upgrade easily their fiber technology is a strength.
COVERAGE:
Level 3 has network in almost all of the states of the SURA region. It has network in the SURA cities
of Atlanta, D.C., Wilmington, Raleigh, Miami, New Orleans, Nashville, Tampa, Houston, and Richmond*
*See also network build plans provided to SURA.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
As Level 3's business plan is to provide dark fiber and wavelength services, there are excellent
opportunities to meet SURA needs. They have the capacity to discuss "out-of-the-box" solutions.*
*For example, according to SURA's own report, Level 3 is interested in “cash flow neutral” proposals to upgrade existing ILA
sites near SURA universities to full add/drop sites.
(See SURA report on its meeting of 6/21/01 with Level 3.)
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
Level 3 is hungry for a SURA-like opportunity. Its current &, hopefully, temporary financial problems
provides SURA good opportunities with a strong company that owns a state-of-the-art network.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
151
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Level 3 is perceived in the industry as not being flexible in its terms & in its negotiations. Geo/Matrix
believes this to be true and, because they have a network in place, they may appear to be only
interested in selling their current set of services. Nonetheless, this innovative company is hungry for
SURA-like opportunities & thus may be willing to be flexible & accommodating in their negotiations.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
Well known, respected and seasoned experienced telecom professionals from around the industry
run Level 3. Geo/Matrix is familiar with its senior management & is impressed. Some doubts exist
respecting the quality of Level 3's middle management.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
15
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
High interest payments on high debt must be paid from revenues that are currently missing projected
targets in a tight financial market. However, they do have strong cash reserves.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
Network operations is a strength at Level 3. They have good company support people and facilities
having as background extensive experience with Kiewit, MFS and UUnet.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
In order to sustain the viability of its Business Plan, Level 3 must market & use its multi conduits &
pay high interest payments on high debt. It must earn high revenues over time to pay off this debt.
There is some doubt as to their ability to do this.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
15
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
As a company with a new network R & D is very important to Level 3. Of all the companies
Geo/Matrix pursued, Level 3 is perhaps one of the strongest in R&D and is among the select few
telecommunication carriers with its own R&D department.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Using provided lat/long coordinates of all SURA member institutions, Level3 will plot the SURA
member institutions on their route maps. They will then sort the SURA members into 3 categories*.
2.
Follow up with Level 3 on status of categorization of members into the aforementioned 3 categories.
3.
Use Level 3’s need for revenues & R&D to garner unique solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements.
4.
Pursue the other opportunities presented by Level 3 and Geo/Matrix. Please see synopsis made a
part of this report.
5.
Investigate what Level(3) is willing to do in the way joint builds or network expansions as they apply
to the relationships between Level(3)’s metro builds and the associated nearby SURA member.
*1. SURA members within a 1 mile radius of current Level3 routes, 2. SURA members within 10-15 mile radius of Level3 routes,
3. SURA members outside a 15 mile radius of Level3 routes.
152
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Touch America
INTERVIEWER NAME: Dana Veitch
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
279
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
2
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
TA is currently completing their nationwide network.
2.
TA is financially stable, can construct where needed.
3.
Long Haul routes throughout the SURA footprint, w/ selected metro cities.
4.
Offer Radio License for metro areas for final connectivity.
5.
TA hired Executive's from AT&T, MCI etc., understand the telecom bus.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
2.
TA network is primarily on Long Haul routes.
Management requires 50% of a new route before it's approved for build.
3.
4.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
TA is very interested in working with SURA to develop a mutually beneficial plan.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Their POP locations vary, but will provide additional sites where required.
COVERAGE:
TA's route extend east to west on the northern and southern edges of SURA.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
TA's suggests to meet with their Long Range Engineering and Planning Group. TA
will evaluate the network to see if their existing network has excess fibers.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
TA has strong financials which is very important in this endeavor. The personnel are
very eager to meet with SURA to begin planning the project.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
153
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
TA is very flexible in meeting SURA's needs and requirements.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
18
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
TA has been in the telecommunications business for 25 + years. TA's senior ex.'s
are from some of the larger telecoms including AT&T, MCI.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
25
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
TA is very strong and stable and this should not be a concern.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
TA owns and operates the former US West western regional long distance network.
They are in the process of building out the eastern US via joint builds.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
TA is currently observing what the industry is going through. It feels this is an
ideal opportunity for TA and SURA to jointly build a network in the southeast US.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
TA's long range Planners and Engineers are very focused on research leading
edge technology in the telecom industry.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Invite TA to a meeting, they have offices in Wash. DC, Denver & Butte.
2.
Propose the stages of development SURA is considering.
3.
Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding agreement
4.
Develop a Team from both Groups to work together on the development.
5.
Because of TA's relationship with AT&T/Velocita, we recommend that SURA
carefully match-up its AT&T/Velocita efforts with its TA efforts*
* Please see AT&T and Velocita reports.
154
15
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Global Crossing
INTERVIEWER NAME: Tom Durkin
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
4
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
256
1.
Global, Regional & Local Networks.
2.
Expressed Flexibility & are willing to partner with other providers.
3.
GC donated 10 DS3s to FIU's AMPATH.
4.
Willing to consider provisioning wavelengths & discuss dark fiber options.
5.
Familiar with academic community, STAR TAP, I2's Abilene ntwk.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
2.
Large Telco with all the trappings of possible difficulty in introducing
options.
3.
4.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
GC have called several times and are interested in the next steps.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
The information seen so far indicates good coverage.
COVERAGE:
All states within the SURA region
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
32
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
There is interest in providing unique solutions, but they are not willing to commit to
a complete dark fiber solution.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
Extensive experience
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
155
35
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Appears to be very responsive up to this stage.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
There is a sound operation group in place.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
They have a group within the company that is responsible for developing the metro
ntwk, which has been ignored in the past. They have in place Intl and regional ntwk.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Request a sample area where GC has good coverage and request their version of a
2.
solution.
3.
Have a meeting with their ntwk engineers to discuss possible options in SURA
4.
region.
5.
156
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Aerie Networks
INTERVIEWER NAME: David Nissen
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
5
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
252
1.
Aerie is willing to think “out-of-the-box” when considering SURA’s needs.
2.
Aerie has a strong focus on the sale of dark fibers.
3.
Aerie uses its founder’s unique right-of-way (“ROW”) assets.
4.
“vendor neutral” high fiber count network with few restrictions on its use.
5.
Opportunities for SURA to influence Aerie’s build in order to access bandwidth*.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Funding must be rec'vd from the currently tight financial markets in order to build
their network.
`
2.
Aerie is a new facility based interexchange carrier.
3.
No network is in place. SURA must wait until new network is build before benefits
can be realized.
4.
Some doubt their ability to find and retain the 6-10 core partners they need for a
successful build.
5.
Inability to upgrade easily their fiber technology is a major flaw.
*For example, there is the possibility that Aerie could place their required fiber electronics on SURA member properties under an
arrangement with the member university.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
This is demonstrated by Aerie's many calls, emails & their attendance at the N.C. mtg. It is shown by
the mtgs they have attended in NY/CO & their openness with netw. Info. & willingness to talk about
unique netw.-changing solutions that benefit SURA.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
No network at present. Will be "vendor neutral". Planned high fiber (432) cable (1). May be possible
to “steer” rural routes to the advantage of SURA without significantly affecting Aerie's build.
COVERAGE:
When completed, Aerie will have network in almost all of the states where SURA has members. *
* See network build plans provided to SURA.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
As Aerie's business plan is to provide dark fiber there are excellent opportunities to meet needs.
Capacity to discuss at the highest level of Aerie's management "out-of-the-box" solutions.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
As Aerie is a new carrier with aggressive plans to construct a new nationwide state-of-the-art
netw., Aerie is very interested in taking advantage of the PR benefits that would come from a
partnership with SURA.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
157
35
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
It is perceived that this young innovative company hungry for SURA like opportunities will
be eager to be flexible and accommodating in their negotiations.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
18
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
New company. However recruited experienced telecom professionals from around the industry.
Geo has dealt with the CEO & is impressed. Low score results from lack of network deployment.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
10
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Funding must be rec'vd from the currently tight financial markets in order to build their network.
However, they do have financially strong utility "founders" that support their efforts.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
8
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
No network operations at present. They do have sales and support offices throughout the U.S. with
known offices in the SURA region of Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
8
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
There is some doubt as to their ability to find & retain the 6-10 core partners they need for a
successful build. Some view the high fiber count & inability to upgrade easily the fiber technology as a
a major flaw.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
As a new company with a new network R & D will be very important to Aerie.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
React quickly, as timing is critical because Aerie is now in the planning stages of network
deployment.
2.
Once a “property use” opportunity is discovered, SURA should work with its member to determine if
space is available to Aerie.
3.
Use Aerie’s need for revenues & PR to garner unique solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements.
4.
They are exploring opportunities for bringing the planned Aerie netw. within 10-15 miles of as many
SURA members as possible.*
5.
SURA committed to follow up with Aerie regarding potential alterations of Aerie routes by mid-July. #
*Aerie has the physical locations of SURA as mapped by Geo/Matrix.
# Based on SURA/Aerie meeting of 6/22/01.
158
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
AT&T Broadband
INTERVIEWER NAME: Tom Durkin
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
251
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
6
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Well established ntwk with local, regional and International ntwk assets.
2.
Capable of connecting a large percentage of SURA Universities.
3.
Staff committed to getting resources assigned internally.
4.
Contributed significant donations to Universities and serve many SURA
5.
member universities.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
May not get corporate approval & support for wavelength products.
2.
A fixed product portfolio that does not include dark fiber or lambdas.
3.
Traditionally has a telco mentality and not motivated to change.
4.
Would like to maintain the status quo (market plus pricing) and not
5.
introduce innovative or disruptive price models.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
Although the AT&T staff that GEO/Matrix met with were very cooperative and willing
to offer valuable suggestions, the corporate approval process may be challenging.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
AT&T has over 100 SONET rings in the contiguous USA.
May not have spare capacity to offer lambdas on their current network.
COVERAGE:
Covers each of the SURA states.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Will not be in a position to offer dark fiber.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
The AT&T support staff was very willing to discuss meeting the objectives, but have
imbedded hurtles presented by the approval process that has not been tested.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
159
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
There are many layers to the approval process within AT&T and will probably be a
time consuming process.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
One of the oldest and most established in the telecom industry.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Has significant resources available.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Setup some reasonable objectives for AT&T to meet and see how they respond.
2.
Because of AT&T's relationship with Velocita/Touch America, we recommend that
3.
SURA carefully match-up its Velocita/Touch America efforts with its AT&T efforts*
4.
5.
*Please see Velocita and Touch America reports.
160
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Southern Telecom
INTERVIEWER NAME: Dana Veitch
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
249
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
7
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Tier 1 company of the Southern Company organization - totally funded.
2.
Can provide connectivity to most of the SURA universities in all cities.
3.
Space available for SURA in all POP locations.
4.
Small organization to work with, flexible.
5.
Offering dark fiber and/or conduit only.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
So. Tel has not received final approval from senior management.
2.
In search of an Anchor Tenant in order for final senior management
3.
approval.
4.
Bandwidth, lit services Systems are not in their business plan.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
30
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. is in a position to offer SURA the opportunity to participate in joint builds,
marketing fiber, trade participation, etc.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Should So. Tel. complete the planned route, it will reach most all of SURA's target
locations. To reach this goal, it will take 2 to 3 years.
COVERAGE:
So. Tel has excellent ROWs to reach virtually all SURA locations, via the Power Co.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel will have the excess dark fiber capacity to grant to the appropriate
educational group(s).
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
SURA's footprint is identical with So. Tel.'s original business plan, to connect tier 1
to 4 cities. So. Tel. Should be seriously considered.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
161
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. is very flexible to working with SURA .
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
18
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. Is a company of 8 core personnel, with in-house engineering for their
current construction projects.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
25
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. Is a direct subsidiary of Southern Company. Their financial capability
is directly associated with Southern Company's stability.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel has a small corporate operations staff in Atlanta only. Their staff will be
expanding with their operations.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. is a very conservative co. with solid business strategies, such as analyzing
and applying the parent co.'s assets to where the shortage of connectivity exists.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
So. Tel. is at the infancy stage of research and development. This might work to
SURA's benefit whereby SURA offers this end of the equation for a successful deal.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Meet with Southern Company's senior management for a commitment.
2.
Discuss strategy and schedule of deployment with So. Telecom.
3.
Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding agreement
4.
Receive final commitment from Southern Company's Senior Management to proceed.
5.
Commence deployment of SURA's business plan via the So. Tel. Network.
162
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
American Fiber Network
INTERVIEWER NAME: Tom Durkin
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
249
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
8
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Large regional network from a consortium of Utility companies.
2.
Interested in establishing themselves in new markets.
3.
Would like to develop an anchor tenant to cost justify ntwk expansion.
4.
Does not have a large revenue base that would be affected by a creative
5.
"out-of-the-box" approach.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Not a significant amount of experience in telecom.
2.
May be encumbered by their conservative utility mentality.
3.
May not have the resources to support ntwk technologies.
4.
May not offer dark fiber.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
AFN is a regional provider.
COVERAGE:
MD, WV, VA, TN, KY and DC
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
32
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Have not committed to dark fiber & currently do not offer this product, although their
network is capable.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
163
35
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
18
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
The consortium was formed 2 years ago and are not posses extensive experience.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Parent utilities are well established and financially sound.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
9
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
SURA should plan to meet with AFN to discuss a regional solution with lambdas or
2.
dark fiber.
3.
4.
5.
164
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Old Dominion Telecom
INTERVIEWER NAME: David Otte / TD
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
247
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
9
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Commitment to Education initiative
2.
Solid financial base
3.
Willingness to participate
4.
Currently preparing new fiber build
5.
Solid coverage due to member Cooperatives
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
New to competitive telecom industry
2.
Including non-member Cooperatives in initiative
3.
Management lacks telecom experience
4.
No Southern State coverage
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
Executive management has exhibited (with board approval) acceptance of creative
solutions to network deployment and commitment to education initiative.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Physical attributes of Cooperative covers 4 states and has shown willingness and
capability to include other Cooperatives ( 3 states) outside membership of OD.
COVERAGE:
DE/MD/VA/WV/NC/TN/KY
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
32
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Commitment as well as ability to provide to education community.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
Strong Cooperative with leadership seeking to enhance the communities it serves
w/ telecommunications. Willing to accept and understand outside the box thinking.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
165
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Strong executive management position allows for quick negotiations and fair terms.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
New area for the Cooperative, but show a willingness to accept direction from
experienced partners.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Solid Cooperative and growing.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
Strong presence in the Mid-Atlantic States.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
Strong 3/5 year and beyond business plan.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
6
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Meeting to discuss inclusion of the non-member Cooperatives in surrounding States.
2.
3.
4.
5.
166
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
MCI WorldCom
INTERVIEWER NAME: Tom Durkin
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
246
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
10
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Has a large local, regional and international network footprint.
2.
WC has acquired some advanced networks for packet delivery - UUNet.
3.
WC was involved in some "Next Generation Internet" initiatives.
4.
Has the ntwk to provide a significant amount of university connectivity.
5.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
There is a good chance that it will be too long of a approval process on
2.
introducing a solution that is consistent with SURA objectives.
3.
There may not be anyone of significant influence to get the necessary
4.
network resources to propose a competitive alternative to WC's current
5.
product offerings (currently not offering lambdas or dark fiber).
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
There is a willingness to participate, but have not seen any good proposed solutions.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Significant ntwk coverage in the SURA region.
COVERAGE:
All states in SURA region
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Currently not offering a solution that includes dark fiber.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
Initial mtg was disappointing, but f/u calls expressed interest in exploring options.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
167
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Appear to be slow in responding and takes a long time to grasp opportunity.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
30
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Set a conference call to determine proposed solutions in a specific area and explore
2.
their willingness to partner with other providers.
3.
4.
5.
168
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia*
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
11
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
* AKA "MEAG" and DBA "GeorgiaPublicWeb"
INTERVIEWER NAME: David Nissen
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
243
1.
Strong entity as part of a 20 year old electric cooperative utility serving Georgia.
2.
Long time associate of GA Tech's R. Hutchins. As a result, MEAG knows well &
respects the needs of the academic community, SURA and the SURA initiative.*
3.
As a utility they have plenty of ROW.
4.
MEAG goals of social/civic responsibility to seek ways to promote econ. dev'lmpt &
improve the quality of life for citizens matches up with the goals of SURA.
5.
A main reason for the establishment of GeorgiaPublicWeb was to “bring low cost
bandwidth to the region for economic development".
*MEAG is already wking with GA Tech to allow them Internet2 connectivity as part of GeorgiaPublicWeb is at GA Tech.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Limited coverage in only Georgia with particular emphasis on rural Georgia.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
50
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
MEAG's Mr. Savory attended the SURA Workshop in N.C. and has had many discussions and “brainstorming” sessions on the initiative with GA Tech's R. Hutchins. All this has indicated a strong
willingness to participate.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
27/3#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
MEAG has a $35M telecommunications network in place consisting of approx. 1,000 route miles.
As an electrical utility they have the advantage of having plenty of right of way.
COVERAGE:
As an electric cooperative utility serving rural Georgia, MEAG covers GA very well.*
*They serve 48 Georgia cities and one county with electrical and, in one form or another, telecom services.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
MEAG is legally enabled to meet its social/civic goals of econ. dev'lmpt & improve the quality of life
for citizens in its territory. These goals match with the goals of SURA. MEAG knows this.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
This interviewer has had numerous discussions with MEAG & GA Tech re the SURA opportunities.
There are opportunities & a strong willingness to Partner & thus the need for SURA to pursue MEAG.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
169
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Very flexible as demonstrated by their suggested offerings to GA Tech. They can be flexible as
their goals match those of SURA's.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
18
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
As a utility they have their own telecom needs to serve over 200 sub-stations.
However, they are not a traditional carrier therefore they rec'vd a relatively low score.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
As part of a well established old electric cooperative utility serving Georgia, GeorgiaPublicWeb
is stable.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
As part of a well established old electric cooperative utility serving Georgia, GeorgiaPublicWeb
is supported by the operations of the utility. The size/scale is limited as they serve only GA.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
MEAG's business strategy is good for SURA as their plans are to meet their social/civic responsibility to
to seek ways to promote econ. dev'lmpt & improve the quality of life matches up with SURA goals.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
6
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
Limited R&D need and interest.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Geo-Matrix recommends that Georgia PublicWeb be considered for further meetings.
2.
Because of MEAG's close relationship with GA Tech, we recommend that SURA match-up GA
Tech’s efforts with GeorgiaPublicWeb with its own needs.
3.
Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA leverage GeorgiaPublicWeb’s stated desire for economic
development within its service territory to garner unique cost-effective network solutions for SURA.
4.
5.
170
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
FPL Telecom (Florida Power & Light)
INTERVIEWER NAME: Dana Veitch
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
242
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
FPL has excellent coverage in the central Florida region (tri county area)
2.
FPL has a considerable amount of dark fiber available.
3.
FPL has strategic metro loops throughout their cities.
4.
FPL has ample Colo space for SURA in all of their locations.
5.
FPL has outstanding infrastructure at all of their Florida Cableheads.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
2.
FPL is only in Florida.
FPL will only expand to the extent of the Florida Power & Light's ROWs.
3.
4.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
30
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
FPL is very interested in working with SURA to the best of their ability.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
27/3#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
FPL covers 3 counties that include Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jackson and Melbourne.
They also have great POP locations at all of the cable heads landing in Florida.
COVERAGE:
Their coverage offers dark fiber, bandwidth and lit services and POP space.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
FPL has ample amount of dark fiber for the project and for dedication to
educational systems, as required.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
FPL Telecom has strong financials due to the fact they are a direct subsidiary of Florida
Power and Light. It appears FPL can easily meet and exceed SURA's needs in FL.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
171
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
FPL is very flexible in negotiations and is ready to discuss a deal with SURA. Their
ntwk is in place and FPL is constantly adding metro and LH routes within their region.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
FPL has been in the telecom business for years with very seasoned executives
in the telecom and power business.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
FPL is very strong and stable and this should not be a concern.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
FPL's operations are centrally located in the Florida region only.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
FPL has a long term business strategy to includes working with the parent
company's ROWs in order to continue increasing their network.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
9
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
FPL's engineers have a well balanced understanding of the networks available
and of up-coming technology that can improve their existing networks.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Invite FPL to a meeting. They're based in Miami, FL.
2.
Propose the stages of development SURA has in scope.
3.
Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding agreement.
4.
Develop a Team from both groups to work together on the development of SURA
5.
solutions.
172
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Velocita Communications (formerly PF.Net)
INTERVIEWER NAME: David Nissen
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
13
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
241
1.
Velocita is willing to think “out-of-the-box” when considering SURA’s needs.
2.
Velocita's management is very familiar with and has had positive experience with the
academic community.
3.
Strategically partnered with AT&T, Koch Industries and Touch America. Under
contract with AT&T to build 6,400 miles.
4.
Velocita uses the benefits of its partner AT&T’s unique right-of-way (ROW) assets.*
*As a result, there is a higher likelihood that Velocita network will be at or near a SURA university.
5.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Opportunities for SURA to influence Aerie’s build in order to access bandwidth.
Velocita is a new facility based interexchange carrier. Heavy competition will tax this
company.
`
2.
AT&T influence may limit flexibility in negotiations.
3.
Limited amount of network is operational. SURA must wait until new network is build
before benefits can be realized.
4.
Some doubt their ability to find customers in the very competitive environment of
interexchange carrier services.
5.
Some concern about their middle management's skills and the challenges they will
face in this already overcrowded market.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
This is demonstrated by Velocita's many calls, emails & their attendance at the N.C. mtg. It is shown
by their openness with network information and their willingness to talk about unique network-changing solutions that benefit SURA.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
36/4#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
Network is 60% complete. They are building a new nationwide fiber network by using, in part, AT&T’s
unique right-of-way (“ROW”) assets. Plan is to build an 18,800 mile network.
COVERAGE:
When completed, Velocita will have network in almost all of the states where SURA has members.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
32
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Willing to consider network joint builds and/or network adjustments.
Capacity to discuss at the highest level of Velocita's management "out-of-the-box" solutions.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
Velocita has a management familiar to Geo/Matrix. We like their senior management and, as a result,
we are comfortable in recommending Velocita as a Partner to SURA. However, we are concerned
about their middle management's skills and the challenges the company will face in this overcrowded
market, thus the reason for the relatively low score.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
173
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Velocita's stated practice of swapping indicates they are comfortable with swapping arrangements,
an option attractive to SURA. It is hoped that this young innovative company is hungry for SURA-like
opportunities & thus is flexible, however their Sales organ. seems to indicate otherwise. Further,
AT&T influence may limit flexibility. Because of these 2 items, we were forced to lower this score.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
New company with well-known strong partners. Management team of seasoned telecom veterans
recruited from around the industry.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
20
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Funding must be rec'vd from the currently tight financial markets. However, they do have financially
strong partners (AT&T/Koch Industries/Touch America) that support their efforts.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
No network operations at present. They do have sales and support offices throughout the U.S.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
Their strong partnership mix of AT&T, Koch Industries and Touch America gives this company a
relatively high score. It will have a successful build via the ROW assets from AT&T and the
construction/engineering skills of Koch Industries. Their plan to have debt much lower then their
competitors due to construction cost advantages is a good one.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
Velocita is particularly interested in the R&D aspect of the SURA initiative for the possible rollout of
new services. Management is particularly knowledgeable about SURA and the educ. community.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
SURA should react quickly by means of additional meetings with Velocita, as timing is critical
because construction is now underway or about to start within the SURA region.
2.
Because of Velocita’s relationship with AT&T/Touch America, we recommend that SURA carefully
match-up its AT&T/Touch America efforts with its Velocita efforts.*
3.
Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA use Velocita's need for revenues & PR to garner unique
solutions to SURA’s bandwidth requirements.
4.
Geo-Matrix recommends that SURA use Velocita’s desire for R&D and resulting new services to
garner additional unique solutions to SURA bandwidth requirements.
5.
* Please see AT&T and Touch America reports.
174
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Teleglobe
INTERVIEWER NAME: Tom Durkin
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
TOTAL SCORE:
239
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
14
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
1.
Teleglobe has a large regional network and a international network.
2.
Teleglobe has worked and supported academic networks over the yrs.
3.
Is active in MIRNet and STARTAP.
4.
Teleglobe has significant presence in the SURA region.
5.
Expressed flexibility and are motivated participants.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Do not have an abundance of dark fiber & haven't committed to lambdas
2.
Teleglobe has traditionally been a carrier's carrier providing solutions
3.
to existing ntwk providers and is historically been an incumbent
4.
provider in Canada.
5.
US national network is purchased dark fiber; not owned infrastructure
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
Wants to participate in the SURA initiative and willing to consider new approaches.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
27/3#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
COVERAGE:
Appears to be 90% of SURA region
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
Not is a position to offer dark fiber.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
28
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
175
35
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
There is a group within Teleglobe that is assigned to educational & government
ntwks
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
30
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
25
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
16
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Begin discussions on a proposed network solution & evaluate response.
2.
3.
4.
5.
176
15
TOP 15 ANALYSIS FORM*
*=Note that the reader is encouraged to also examine the Executive Summery on this company that has been made a part of this Report.
NAME OF COMPANY:
Progress Telecom
INTERVIEWER NAME:
David Nissen
TOP 5 ATTRIBUTES:
1.
Strong entity as part of a well-established electric utility serving the southeast US.
2.
Long time provider of telecom services to SURA member institutions. As a result,
TOTAL SCORE:
FINAL TOP 15 RANKING:
15
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
315
237
Progress knows well & respects the needs of the academic community and SURA.
3.
Progress responded favorably to a “thinking out-of-the-box” approach in dealing with
SURA needs.
4.
5.
TOP 5 DEFICIENCIES: 1.
Limited coverage in only VA, NC, SC, GA and FL, with particular emphasis on third
tier and higher communities and rural areas.
2.
Focused on providing services and not dark fibers.
3.
4.
5.
1. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE:
40
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
50
The degree of interest in the SURA initiative and ability to think of, present, and deal with out-of-the box solutions.
COMMENTS:
Progress attended the SURA Workshop in N.C. and has had many discussions with Geo/Matrix.
Progress understands the goals of the SURA initiative and is eager to participate.
2. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES/COVERAGE:
27/3#
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
45
In addition to an assessment of the physical attributes of the company's networks, this also includes the level of
coverage across the SURA footprint and the degree of the coverage (regional, sub-regional or local).
COMMENTS:
As a utility they have access to ROW. However, you must temper that benefit against the possible
perfection issues of electric ROW.
COVERAGE:
As an electric utility limited coverage in only VA, NC, SC, GA and FL, with particular emphasis on
third tier and higher communities and rural areas.
3. CAPABILITY TO MEET SURA NEEDS:
32
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
40
Includes the ability to provide dark fiber with a minimum of two (2) fibers for educational traffic and two (2) fibers for
research and development purposes.
COMMENTS:
The provisioning of dark fibers was discouraged by Progress. Instead they offered 10Gig
wavelengths. Progress did state a willingness to consider “cost plus” price modeling with SURA.
Also, because Progress currently services large areas of 3rd tier & higher communities in 5 SURA
states, Progress has a very high capability to meet SURA's needs in these states.
4. INTANGIBLES (INTERVIEWER EXPERIENCE):
35
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The interviewer’s personal perception of the company to meet and exceed the needs of SURA.
COMMENTS:
There are opportunities and a strong willingness to Partner and thus the need for SURA to pursue
Progress.
# = Unsatisfactory = 1 Questionable = 2 Acceptable = 3 Strong = 4 Superior = 5
177
5. TERMS AND FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS:
21
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
35
The ability to expeditiously negotiate and arrive at reasonable terms and conditions during negotiation.
COMMENTS:
Because Progress is a long time provider of telecom services to SURA member institutions they
should understand that they need to be flexible and reasonable in their negotiations with SURA.
6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE:
24
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
30
Years in the business, understanding of fiber optic network solutions (both traditional and non-traditional) and senior
management’s breadth of experience in the telecommunications industry.
COMMENTS:
As a utility they have their own telecom needs to serve sub-stations, etc. Progress Telecom is the
number 2 vendor in with UUnet & works very closely with Williams Communications & Telefonica.
7. CORPORATE STABILITY:
25
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
25
The current financial stability of the company in relationship to the existing turbulence of the telecommunications industry
and the stock market and its ability to maintain financial stability and expansion capabilities.
COMMENTS:
Progress is financially strong. It is a Fortune 500 diversified holding co. & is one of the top 10
generators of electricity in the U.S. with $7B in annual revs. The co's diverse portfolio includes 2
major electric utility cos, CP&L and Florida Power serving 2.8 million customers across the Southeast.
8. CORPORATE OPERATIONS:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Includes the size and scale of the company’s telecom operations throughout the continental US, particularly the
southeastern sector.
COMMENTS:
As part of a well established utility, Progress is supported by the operations of the utility.
The size/scale is limited as they serve only VA, NC, SC,GA & FL.
9. BUSINESS STRATEGIES:
12
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
20
Validity of current business plans and if the company has prudent 3 and/or 5 year business plans.
COMMENTS:
Progress’ network deployment plans include serving the somewhat rural areas of the states they
are in*.
*As such, Progress asked if SURA would consider the value they bring by their networks reaching non-SURA schools.
10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
9
OUT OF A POSSIBLE:
15
The level of importance of research and development to the company as an incentive to participate in this initiative.
COMMENTS:
Limited R&D need and interest.
11. FUTURE ITEMS TO ADDRESS WITH THIS COMPANY
Recommended next steps.
1.
Geo-Matrix recommends that Progress be considered for further meetings.*
2.
Because of Progress's already close relationship with some SURA members, we recommend that SURA match-up Progress's current member efforts
3.
Find out if Progress has developed a partner for itself to help it pursue the SURA initiative.
4.
Geo-Matrix recommends an investigation into what are the non-SURA member schools that SURA
might like connectivity to via Progress’ network (both existing and planned).
5.
Once network is identified as attractive to SURA, Geo-Matrix suggests that joint build opportunities
be explored with Progress.
* One of these mtgs might consider Progress' Latin America needs/connections for possible add'l benefits from a SURA/Progress partnership.
178
8. Typical Network Specifications
8.1 Introduction
This section details typical minimum industry standard requirements for splicing and testing for
acceptance of single-mode and multi-mode fiber optic cable. These standards have been
included by Geo-Matrix for the potential partners in Phase III to adhere to.
8.2 Equipment
8.2.1 Manufacturer Recommendations
A specific manufacturer is not recommended, however, all equipment used by a
contractor must be calibrated, where applicable. All contractors are typically required to
submit Certificates of Calibration for all appropriate equipment prior to the
commencement of testing activities.
8.2.2 Minimum Requirements
OTDR:
Dynamic range capable of a minimum 28 dB
For single-mode fiber testing at 1550 nm
For multi-mode fiber testing at 1310 nm
Inspection Microscope:
Minimum 200X magnification
Visual Light Source:
Class 2 rated red laser (635-670 nm)
Power Meter:
Capable of reading
850, 1310, 1550, and 1625
Provide a minimum +3 dB to -60 dB range
Fiber Optic Traffic Identifier:
Adapters for ribbon, 900 m & 3 mm cable types
Launch Cord:
1.0 Km single-mode fiber launch box with -55 dB
UPC-FC finish connector on the OTDR side, and
-55 dB UPC-SC finish connector on the side panel
(100-meter cord acceptable if OTDR has 50 ns
pulse width setting. Front-end connector must be
visible)
Cleaning Products:
CLETOP or PREP contact connector cleaner
(Ferrule cleaner for ceramic connector face)
Krell Satwipe or Chemwipe
(with fiber approved alcohol)
Alcoa Fujikora SC bulkhead adaptor cleaning tips
Dry foam swabs
179
Fusion Splicers:
Core alignment type for single fibers
V-groove alignment type for mass fusion
Certificate of Calibration prior to testing
8.3 Testing Procedures
The following testing procedures will be required for all new build or joint-build scenarios.
8.3.1 Power Meter Test Procedure
The power meter test procedure is used to accurately determine fiber optic link light
power loss. The test should be performed as part of the final facility acceptance test or
whenever a measure of link optical loss is required.
Power meter test must be conducted at the following wavelengths based on the fiber type:
 Standard Single Mode Fiber:
 AllWave Fiber:
 Non-Zero Dispersion Shifted Fiber:
(True Wave & LEAF)
testing at 1310 nm and 1550 nm
testing at 1310 nm and 1550 nm
testing at 1550 nm and 1625 nm
8.3.2 OTDR Test Procedure
An optical time domain refelctometer (OTDR) is used to obtain a visual representation of
an optical fiber’s attenuation characteristics on its screen, in graphical format, with the
distance represented on the x-axis and attenuation represented on the y-axis. Information,
such as fiber attenuation, splice loss, connector loss, and anomaly locations can be
determined from the display.
OTDR is the only method available for determining the location of broken optical fibers
in an installed fiber optic cable when the cable jacket is not visibly damaged. It provides
the best method for determining loss due to individual splices, connectors, or other
single-point anomalies installed in a system. This procedure allows a technician the
opportunity to determine whether a splice is within specifications or requires redoing and
also provides the best representation of overall fiber integrity. OTDR testing must be
conducted bi-directionally unless otherwise directed.
Table 8.1: Bi-directional Splice Loss Criteria
Fiber Type
Splicing Method
Standard Single Mode
Single fiber splicing
Standard Single Mode
Mass fusion splicing
Non-zero Dispersion Shifted
Single fiber splicing
Non-zero Dispersion Shifted
Mass fusion splicing
180
Splice Loss (dB)
0.10 dB
0.20 dB
0.15 dB
0.30 dB
Table 8.2: Connection Criteria
Parameter
Connector Insertion Loss
Reflectance
Criteria
0.5 dB
-50 dB
8.3.3 Fiber Optic Cable Tests
A fiber optic cable should be tested three separate times during an installation and these
include:
1. The Reel Test
2. The Splicing-Installation Test
3. The Acceptance Test
8.3.3.1 The Reel Test
After the cable is received from the manufacturer and is still on the shipping reel, the
cable is tested for manufacturer’s defects and/or shipping damage. Any anomalies
not meeting specifications should be reported immediately to the manufacturer or
shipper. The cable should not be installed until it passes this test.
8.3.3.2 The Splicing-Installation Test
This test can be performed as soon as the cable is installed in the route, all splices
have been completed, and while the splice crews are still on-site. The test can
identify any cable damage resulting from the installation process. Also, the test can
provide splice-loss verification before splice enclosures are permanently mounted.
8.3.3.3 The Acceptance Test
After the entire fiber optic system is complete and ready for commissioning, this test
should be conducted. The test provides the final commissioning data for engineering
acceptance and archive data.
8.3.3.4 Testing Chronology
Once a span is completed, including all splicing and termination (where applicable),
acceptance testing begins. This procedure should conform to the following
chronology:


A continuity test is conducted to verify that no transpositions have occurred.
Each fiber must be tested for continuity. This test must be completed prior to
OTDR testing.
Once the continuity testing is complete, OTDR traces must be shot from both
directions. The contractor is responsible for analyzing these results in order to
181


generate a list that details the bi-directional splice losses for each fiber at each
splice point.
Once those splices with high losses above the established criteria have been
determined, a cleanup and re-splicing (re-burn) of these splices is attempted to
reduce the loss. All re-splice attempts must be documented with bi-directional
OTDR traces for each attempt.
After re-splicing has been completed, the fiber must be re-shot at the
appropriate wavelengths. Also, at this time, a power meter test should be
conducted.
182
9. Conclusions
Geo-Matrix began Phase II with the review and investigation of 138 potential partners that GeoMatrix felt might be suitable for the engagement of discussions and conversations concerning the
SURA RII project. After reviewing the completed potential partner list, Geo-Matrix determined
that 19 companies needed to be removed immediately for one of the following reasons:



The company was not in the fiber optics business
The company was bankrupt and liquidating assets
The company was a subsidiary of another larger fiber optics company
For the remaining 119 potential partners, company contact information was determined for each
potential partner during Geo-Matrix workshops. The SURA partner packages were distributed to
each potential partner and follow-up telephone calls made and face-to-face interviews set up and
were conducted with those potential partners showing a willingness to engage in conversations
concerning their willingness and ability to provide SURA with unique network solutions. Based
on these telephone calls and/or face-to-face interviews, Telephone Interview, Face-to-Face
Interview and Follow-Up Interview forms were completed for all calls and meetings and
Executive Summaries prepared for each company.
Together with the above information, Geo-Matrix included in this Phase II report an Analysis
Matrix, which is a subjective ranking of all the companies Geo-Matrix pursued for the SURA
initiative under Phase II.
Geo-Matrix completed the Analysis Matrix on only
telecommunication, CATV, construction, electrical power companies and authorities. Gas and
oil pipeline companies, railroads, state governments (DOTs), and equipment vendors were not
analyzed because these companies and agencies were determined not to deal with the
telecommunications industry from a dark fiber perspective but are predominately right-of-way
providers offering unique network solutions for joint-build and fiber swapping scenarios.
Additionally, because of circumstances beyond Geo-Matrix’s control and the Phase II deadline
imposed by SURA, Geo-Matrix considers seven companies as not having a fair opportunity to
hear and respond to the SURA initiative under Phase II. These companies are: Allegiance
Telecom, Inc., America’s Fiber Network, Cox Communications, Dominion Telecom, Eastern
Kentucky Networks, Old Dominion Electric and PatriotCom. Geo-Matrix states this in spite of
the fact that some Executive Summaries on these companies took the SURA-schedule mandated
position that if the company was unable to meet the Phase II report deadline they were to be
automatically dropped from further consideration. As a result, Geo-Matrix makes the following
overture to SURA; if desired by SURA and if SURA can choose between telephone and/or faceto-face meetings and said calls and/or meetings can be held prior to June 22, 2001, Geo-Matrix is
willing to, under a limited continuation of the Phase II effort, conduct telephone calls and/or
meets with these companies and report on the SURA initiative opportunities that may be possible
from these seven companies. Geo-Matrix awaits SURA’s decision on this offer.
Further, Geo-Matrix has recommended in the Phase II Executive Summaries and under a Phase
III effort, additional second or more meetings with a relatively select group of companies in
order to either garner from them additional insights on the company and their possible
183
contributions to the SURA initiative or to pursue a specific unique opportunity already identified
as a result of the Phase II effort. With these companies it was not possible in one meeting to
completely explore in detail the opportunities that were there to pursue. Not including the
recommended meetings with state DOTs, there are 24 companies that received this
recommendation for additional meetings. It is anticipated that some or all such additional
meetings will take place during Phase III of the SURA initiative. It is Geo-Matrix’s
recommendation that SURA employees and SURA membership representatives take an active
role by participating in these second, third and greater meetings during Geo-Matrix’s completion
of Phase III.
Finally, Geo-Matrix recommends that, based on the ranking system presented in this Phase II
report, SURA create a preliminary short-list of companies that include many, if not all, of the 24
companies that Geo-Matrix recommends additional meetings with. These would represent the
primary companies to be considered by SURA and Geo-Matrix under Phase III. The
recommended short list would include the first 15 companies from the ranking sheet (up to and
including Progress Telecom) and any additional companies SURA selects based on past or
present ongoing considerations. This preliminary shortlist would then be modified and pursued
based on the parameters mutually agreed to and established for Phase III.
Thank you for allowing Geo-Matrix to participate in Phase II of the SURA initiative. Based on
the interviews conducted by Geo-Matrix, the current SURA initiative opportunities presented by
these interviews and the rating system represented in the Analysis Matrix, Geo-Matrix is
confident that the companies ranked for SURA, in the order of best to worst possibility for
potential partnership with SURA, is an accurate reflection of the current state of
telecommunications and telecommunication entities within the SURA 16 state region.
184
Supplemental Documents
I. Alphabetized listing of all potential partners:
 Corporate information
 Contact information
 Network information
II. Interviews documentation:
 Telephone interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
 Face-to-face interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
 Follow-up interviews (with reasons for information deficiency)
185