Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum Presentation to the UTFAB Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Scott Baily, Associate Director for Networking, Scott.Baily@Colostate.edu, 491-7655 Outline Overview of this proposal History of ITFS services Project description NextNet deployment Business model ITFS spectrum – the “gold” standard With support description and a 3-yr. plan Other solutions Funding request Summary UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 2 Overview of this Proposal Project Elements Offer high-speed wireless access to CSU clientele In CSU’s ITFS spectrum that is regulated and protected by the FCC To complement the modem pool that is waning “Non-line of sight” (NLOS) Speeds of 128 kbps “up” and 768 kbps “down” Asymmetric to optimize use of the spectrum In response to years of requests for higher speeds Indoor unit “reach” of about 1 ½ miles Outdoor unit “reach” of 5-6 miles Target $30/month, compared to Comcast $40-45/month Expand the system as budget allows Dependent somewhat on the customer base Can expand by sectorizing the antenna, or Can expand by adding antennas Foothills campus, VTH campus, and other areas, even Loveland, … UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 4 Advantages Lower cost than Comcast and Qwest DSL “Behind” CSU IT security systems, filtering, firewalls CSU IP addresses (for library use and database access) Direct access to CSU IT resources Access to ultrahigh-speed networks through CSU Internet2 and National Lambda Rail Could “reach” where DSL and Comcast cannot UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 5 Funding Request Best estimate now is start-up costs of $200k $100K for “Head End” $100K for subscriber units Have $160k from the modem pool charge-back Need $40k to get started As subscribers join over time, will expand to meet demand as funding permits UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 6 History of ITFS Services History of the ITFS Spectrum FCC licensed the ITFS spectrum (2.5–2.69 GHz) to educational institutions in the 1980’s Institutions could lease their licensed spectrum to the private sector, for example for broadcast TV Requirement that 5% of the spectrum be used for educational purposes (typically, one channel – analogous to Channel 25 on Comcast) Heavily used for education in many major metropolitan areas, especially by Catholic Dioceses on the east coast and in Chicago Repurposed by the FCC in 2000 for 2-way (wireless Internet) UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 8 CSU’s ITFS Spectrum CSU is licensed for the G channels in the Fort Collins area under lead callsign of WNC612 In the mid 1980’s, CSU leased this to Choice TV, that operated it for 20+ channels of broadcast TV, with one channel for educational use (same as channel 25 on Comcast) Choice TV was purchased by Sprint in 2000 Sprint offered “peanuts” to license it for 2 way, e.g. pennies per subscriber per month Our lease with Sprint expires April 11, 2005 UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 9 ITFS Spectrum – the “Gold” Standard ITFS spectrum is “prime real estate” in terms of spectrum (see next page) Over the past several years, private sector mega corporations “took a run” at getting the ITFS Spectrum Best balance between carrying capacity and penetration Lobbied with the FCC to repossess it and auction it Successfully rebuffed by educational lobbying efforts (we had “the Catholics” on our side) Non-interference is guaranteed, but must file an engineering plan and obtain the FCC’s approval The plan must specify equipment brand, model, configuration and power UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 10 ITFS Characteristics Penetration Overall Throughput Carrying Capacity ITFS UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal Frequency, Ghz 11 Project Description N 1 mi. 2 mi. UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 13 Architecture Head end Install a single sector (360o) antenna on one of the towers Link to a base unit that outputs Ethernet Transport to campus backbone in E7 Subscriber side 10/100 Ethernet output Indoor unit – place inside residence wherever the signal is acceptable, range: ~1 ½ miles Outdoor unit – place on a pole and orient it toward the head end, range: ~5-6 miles Can use a $50 router to establish a LAN, just as for Comcast or Qwest UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 14 NextNet Solution Proprietary technology, but works very well in NLOS mode Total cost to get going is $200k, with 330 subscriber units Good coverage, very good penetration, very robust, and adaptable as the FCC changes the spectrum use Purported to serve ~330 simultaneous users Can purchase additional subscriber units to meet demand Currently, the “best” technical solution, according to the ITFS consortium Other solutions are emerging UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 15 Support The system would be operated, managed and supported by the networking staff in ACNS User support Tier 1 support, the ACNS help desk Tier 2 support, ACNS networking staff Tier 3 support, the vendor UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 16 Business Model Business Strategy Strategy – “get going” and grow as revenue allows Use one-time funds to pay for the first installation Use subscription fees to Pay minimal recurring costs Accumulate capital for expansion Can sectorize or add another single-sector site (e.g. Foothills campus, VTH complex, even Loveland where we could obtain a fiber path) Expand over time, as revenue allows, to meet additional demand UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 18 The Contention Ratio The Contention Ratio, C C = “sold capacity”/”equipment capacity” Is a critical variable in a business plan Always > 1 because not everyone uses the resource at the same time, and even when the resource is heavily used, the traffic is bursty with “holes” that can be filled in Depends on capacity control (on the head end), user profiles (user access profile, user traffic profile) For the modem pool, C = 10-12 works fine We think C for ITFS will be between 2 and 4 UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 19 Modem Pool Trends May 1997 : 9,400 subscribers February 2005 : 2,500 subscribers 8,000 were students (85%) 1,000 are students (40%) Potential clientele exists Modems no longer meet remote access requirements, especially for students UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 20 Ramp Up “Ramp up” characterizes the growth in number of subscribers over time Is also a critical variable in a business plan If ramp up is quick, then accumulation of capital is rapid, and expansion is expeditious UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 21 Subscriber Costs One-time connection fee of $50 Monthly subscription cost - $30/month Subscriber units Extra $2/month for an outdoor unit CSU owns, and the monthly subscription fee includes leasing the subscriber unit, “You break it, you buy it,” or Customer can purchase Customer does the installation Can contract with Telecom for installation, either indoor or outdoor Full refund if the customer can not get the system to work within two weeks, and a working subscriber unit is returned UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 22 NextNet Simple Payback, Yrs. C= Head End UTFAB - 03/22/2005 1 2 3 3 2 1 ITFS Proposal 23 3-Year Plan FY 06 FY 07 Deploy initial system Performance tuning, monitoring, robustness Climb the “growth curve” Expand system FY 08 Expand the system more by either sectorization (120o, 90o, or 60o) and/or installation of additional system and antenna UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 24 Other Solutions Other Hardware Sprint They will sell us the equipment they use for ITFS (they are the largest lessee) at their deeply discounted, wholesale cost We will lease back to them the excess capacity for their mobile users Fills the “ramp-up” hole We are to meet with Sprint to get more details on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 26 Funding Request The “Split” of Costs Modem pool UTF Total UTFAB - 03/22/2005 $160k (80%) $40k (20%) $200k ITFS Proposal 28 Funding Leverage Ratio Monthly savings potential (C=2): $10/month/subscriber x 600 subscribers = $6,000 per month Simple payback of $40k in < 7 months In 3 years, leverage ratio = $216k/$40k = 5.4:1 UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 29 Total Savings Over Time 900000 800000 700000 $ / Year 600000 C=4 500000 C=3 400000 C=2 300000 200000 100000 0 1 2 3 Year UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 30 Analysis Considerations (cont’d) This would meet the pent-up demand for CSU access at higher speeds than modems can provide This is a “moderate risk, high gain” proposition As UTFAB, you should deliberately manage your portfolio of risks Recall that for every $1 of UTFAB funding, the modem pool would be contributing $4, so the risk is mitigated UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 32 Considerations We have used NextNet budget numbers – all we have now for what we believe is a good technical solution Sprint may yield lower costs This would allow faster expansion, or Allow getting started with a larger system Both options will be fully explored with a target toward deployment in FY 06 We know of no other way to get going to use this extremely valuable spectrum to meet the demand of CSU residential users UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 33 Summary UTFAB Funding Criteria 1. Benefit as many students as possible Would benefit more with future growth. 2. Ability to effectively utilize the fee Your decision. 3. Not funded by CFT Check. 4. Adherence to budget and accountability Your decision. 5. Potential for direct student use Absolutely. 6. Effort and thought reflected in the plan Your decision. 7. Justification and clarity of project plan Your decision. UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 35 Discussion and questions Are most welcome UTFAB - 03/22/2005 ITFS Proposal 36