Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum Presentation to the UTFAB Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Scott Baily, Associate Director for Networking,

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal2 Outline Overview of this proposal History of ITFS services ITFS spectrum – the “gold” standard Project description NextNet deployment Business model With support description and a 3-yr. plan Other solutions Funding request Summary

Overview of this Proposal

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal4 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 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 “Non-line of sight” (NLOS) 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal5 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal6 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

History of ITFS Services

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal8 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal9 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal10 ITFS Spectrum – the “Gold” Standard ITFS spectrum is “prime real estate” in terms of spectrum (see next page) Best balance between carrying capacity and penetration Over the past several years, private sector mega corporations “took a run” at getting the ITFS Spectrum 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal11 ITFS Characteristics Carrying Capacity Penetration Overall Throughput Frequency, Ghz ITFS

Project Description

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal13 1 mi. 2 mi. N

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal14 Architecture Head end Install a single sector (360 o ) 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal15 NextNet Solution Proprietary technology, but works very well in NLOS mode Good coverage, very good penetration, very robust, and adaptable as the FCC changes the spectrum use Total cost to get going is $200k, with 330 subscriber units 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal16 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

Business Model

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal18 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal19 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 = works fine We think C for ITFS will be between 2 and 4

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal20 Modem Pool Trends May 1997 : 9,400 subscribers 8,000 were students (85%) February 2005 : 2,500 subscribers 1,000 are students (40%) Potential clientele exists Modems no longer meet remote access requirements, especially for students

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal21 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal22 Subscriber Costs One-time connection fee of $50 Monthly subscription cost - $30/month Extra $2/month for an outdoor unit Subscriber units 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal23 NextNet Simple Payback, Yrs. C = 123 Head End321

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal24 3-Year Plan FY 06 Deploy initial system Performance tuning, monitoring, robustness FY 07 Climb the “growth curve” Expand system FY 08 Expand the system more by either sectorization (120 o, 90 o, or 60 o ) and/or installation of additional system and antenna

Other Solutions

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal26 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

Funding Request

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal28 The “Split” of Costs Modem pool$160k (80%) UTF $40k (20%) Total$200k

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal29 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal30

Analysis

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal32 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal33 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

Summary

UTFAB - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal35 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 CFTCheck. 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 - 03/22/2005ITFS Proposal36 Discussion and questions Are most welcome