Request for Information Summary

1
Request for Information Summary

• For
• The Arizona Broadband Communication (ABC) Network

2
Mission
To request information that will be used to aid
in the development of the Telecommunications
Infrastructure Sub-Committees (TISC) Strategic
Plan to the Governors Council of Innovation and
Technology (GCIT) and to aid government
purchasing contracts for communications.
3
Vision

• The Arizona Broadband Communication (ABC)
  concept is a consolidation of communication
  services, WAN resources, existing infrastructure,
  and network management resources to generate cost
  savings, increased efficiency, and improved
  performance.
• The aggregation and centralized
  monitoring of government services should allow
  for the integration of all forms of
  communications traffic into a more cohesive and
  flexible network.
• The resulting service infrastructure
  should provide not only higher performance, but
  also better availability, improved network
  management capability, more rapid response to new
  service requirements, and better potential for
  future cost avoidance. The ABC concept will also
  make possible a more streamlined business
  process.

4
Aggregated Network Access Point (ANAP)

• Approximately 250 points of service around the
  state
• An ANAP is not necessarily a physical presence or
  installation, but rather will be defined as a
  typical access capability (45 Mbps to 100 Gigbps)
• As an ANAP is established, the current
  communications lines in that area will be
  transferred, whenever possible, to access the
  newly established cloud.
• Communities of population 500 or less may only
  require an aggregate of 45 Mbps or less
  initially.
• High-speed network access will be delivered to
  all locations by the provider and distributed to
  users over appropriate links.
• Standards and protocols for ANAPs will be
  defined in a subsequent RFP

5
Key Elements for RFI

• Respondents (providers and others) should
  describe various levels of co-operation and
  partnering requirements with government entities
  necessary to optimize plans and to overcome
  problems.
• Respondents should scale levels of
  co-operation and provide examples of how a wide
  range of government involvement or policy changes
  can impact costs.
• Such examples could include the impact of
  tax breaks, right-of-way waivers, waivers for
  co-location of equipment, etc. in order to
  provide a standards based, secure, reliable,
  scaleable communications environment for the
  delivery of e-services.

6
Goals and Uses of RFI (Feasibility Study)

• Increase the TISCs knowledge to create a better
  Statewide Strategic Plan
• Information gathered will lead to better
  government contracts
• Optimum aggregation of bandwidth demands and
  costs
• Encourage Public/Private Partnering
• Plan to integrate with TPO and outsourced service
  provider

• Encourage vendor partnerships
• Inter-governmental collaboration
• Identify possible solutions for a statewide
  infrastructure
• Coordinate technical management and simplify the
  government/vendor relationship
• Leverage existing expenditures
• Leverage existing infrastructure

7
Other Guiding Principles

• Creative funding scenarios from vendors
• Self-funded - Grants
• Loans - Bonding
• E-rate
• Aggregation of demand to combine funding streams
• Various length of terms vs. rate scenarios
• Voice, Video, and Data with requisite QoS
• Tier 1 Internet connection
• Bandwidth costs scaled to need

• FEASIBLITY STUDY
• Scaled system from 45 Mbps to 1000 Mbps or more
  into 250 AZ cities and towns
• Minimum of 10 Mbps to any rural government
  customer
• Minimum of 1 Mbps to any private customer
• Government as anchor tenant and shared
  infrastructure for public and private sectors
  (TOPAZ)

8
Expectations of Uses of Information from Responses

• How to accomplish
• Standards based
• 24x7 operations
• 3 year implementation
• Prioritized implementation of communities
• Appropriate Service Level Agreements (SLA)
• Scalable (1 Mbps to
• 100 Gigbps)
• Encourage responses using diverse technologies
• A vendor-centric point of view for information

• Hope to see
• Fiber build outs
• Rings
• FTTH
• Wireless build outs
• Point to Point
• Wi-Fi and/or Wi-MAX
• Cable build outs
• New technologies
• Combinations

9
Discussion Points

• Single statewide infrastructure
• vs
• 11 Economic Development Regions
• Fiber rings
• vs
• Vendor selected standards based technology

10
Statewide infrastructure vs. 11 Economic Regions

• Statewide Infrastructure
• Single network to streamline communication
• Probably requires building infrastructure
• Encourages thinking outside the box (little
  contiguous infrastructure in AZ)
• Lends itself to one vendor
• 11 Economic Development Regions
• Supports all ILEC and provider involvement
• Promotes independent Economic Development in the
  11 Regions
• Implies Prime/Sub relationships and competition
• with many vendors

11
Economic Development Regions

• The 11 Economic Development Regions defined by
  State Commerce Department have prove extremely
  useful.
• A regional decision making process is preferred
  for Federal Telecommunication Grants.
• There is also a natural fit as an overlay to
  the States ILEC interests, allowing for
  realistic regional models of cooperation and
  infrastructure build-out.
• Regions are big enough for sufficient
  aggregation of Supply and Demand, leading to
  better pricing, yet small enough for quick
  decisions and management of expectations.

12
Fiber Rings vs. Vendors Choice

• Fiber Rings
• Encourages government connectivity
• Ensures future stability
• Likely will require upfront funding
  appropriations.
• Vendors Choice
• Encourages unique ideas
• Promotes buy-in from diverse vendors
• Likely initial lower cost solutions

13
Colorado MNT (Beanpole) Project

• MNT Project
• Fiber Build-out to 64 County seats
• Loops in and out of each county
• Allocation from Legislature as seed money
• Single Vendor w/ Multi-year contract and Base
  broadband rate (T1s)

14
MAP OF ARIZONAS ILECs
Arizonas 16 ILECs have assigned
territories with associated rights and
responsibilities granted by FCC. (For
purposes of intra-state long distance rate
structures, ILECS are assigned to LATAs,
represented here by hues of blue or
pink/orange.) Qwest is the dominant ILEC in the
state, with approximately 80 of Arizonas
population within its assigned areas. (About
15 of States total area) White areas are
unassigned territories. (These areas are
beginning to experience population growth,
especially near urban fringes.) Most
Intra-state FIBER networks are owned by
ILECs. CLECs and other Phone companies have
regulated access to this ILEC owned
infrastructure for voice solutions.
15
Arizonas Fiber (Middle Mile)
16
FIBER OVERLAY
Note how Fiber build-out stays within respective
ILEC areas. Either Strong central contracting or
good regional co-operation is required if
existing Fiber can be fully leveraged for
Statewide system. Note minimal Fiber loops
(redundancy)