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

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

3. 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

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

5. 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
Erin Perdu:

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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Questions??