Hi-Tech Real Estate Fiber Inventory Project Report by Tom Seiler, U-M Technology Management Office

Overview Project Background Deliverables Fiber in the City Service Inventory Community Efforts Statement of Work

Project Background Intern with University of Michigan Technology Management Office Inventory Fiber in Ann Arbor, Benchmark Other Communities and Determine Best Use of Potential Government Funds SmartZone Proposal LinkMichigan Concept Community Planning

Deliverables Formal Report Statement of Work Fiber Infrastructure Service Inventory Community Efforts Methodology Statement of Work

Fiber in the City Methodology Findings Telecom permits City clerk’s office, 2nd floor city hall Merit and U-M also provided information Findings Companies known to have fiber McLeod, Norlight, KMC Telecom, MCI, Ameritech, U-M/Merit, Level3 Washtenaw County efforts County Metropolitan Planning Commission 734.994.2435 Erin Perdu: perdue@co.washtenaw.mi.us

Service Inventory Methodology Developed detailed questionnaire Data Contacted 28 companies Received 15 filled out questionnaires Used City Hall and IT Zone as reference locations

Service Inventory Findings Wide range of services are available High speed services are available T1 pricing starts from $400 to over $1,500 per month; much higher speeds are available Fiber, cable and copper Distance from a colocation facility impacts pricing Primary differences Pricing approaches – term commitments, usage commitments, pricing types Service level agreements –performance areas covered and performance levels guaranteed

Community Efforts Methodology Research Internet for community examples Determine types of approaches In-depth research High-level documentation Contacted community representatives

Community Efforts Findings Approaches Locally owned Local government with direct network ownership or indirect through a government owned utility. Examples include LaGrange Georgia, Tacoma Washington and Coldwater Michigan Gov’t owned networks face potential conflict of interest and regulatory issues More popular with rural and small communities Utility Telecommunications Digest claims 65 municipalities have made “end runs around their cable or phone monopolies to offer telecom services” (9/2000) Long lead time requirements

Community Efforts Findings Approaches: Demand aggregation – bring together buyers of services, request RFPs and then build the network and provide services With government services – communities such as Chicago are using city services as a starting point; 62 firms responded to RFI; RFQ sent on 5/11/01; LinkMichigan approach Without government services – communities in New England are having great success using this approach; approximately 15 months from starting project until signed contract with provider http://www.bconnect.org http://www.mtpc.org/cluster/connects.htm

Community Efforts Findings Approaches: Promote network build out Worcester Massachusetts has encouraged telecommunications providers to build out the network; not successful Private-sector builder of fiber-optic networks called NEESCom, which was established as the telecom subsidiary of the electric utility formerly known as New England Electric System, installed it at no expense to the city Utility Telecommunications Digest claims more than 150 private electric utilities have entered the telecom market (9/2000) Last mile problem remains Approximately $100M has been invested in Worcester, similar to the amount in Tacoma but with vastly different results In today’s environment, service providers no longer believe in the Field of Dreams approach, they need to see customers

Statement of Work Potential to apply for state funds SmartZone – MEDC Core Community funds until tax increment revenues are realized LinkMichigan Community Assistance – no timetable has been provided Steps for using those funds Identify and survey users to evaluate needs Identify locations to target for services Determine approach to fulfill those needs Implement approach Leverage efforts of other communities

Questions??