Rochester Fiber Internet Feasibility Study

Millennium Strategies
Community Broadband
Feasibility Study
Community Broadband Feasibility Study
Rochester City School District

February 19, 2016
February 19, 2016

Annmarie Lehner
CIO
131 West Broad Street
Rochester, New York 14614
Ms. Lehner,
We respectfully submit the attached report pursuant to the contract between
Millennium Strategies and the Rochester City School District (RCSD). We would
like to thank you for your cooperation and that of your staff during the course of
the Community Broadband Feasibility Study. It has been a pleasure working with
you.
As you will see in the enclosed study document there exists a demonstrable and
compelling need for a high-speed broadband network to bridge the digital divide
experienced by RCSD students and the residents of the City of Rochester. It is
estimated that as many as 35% of the residents of the City of Rochester do not have
access to high-speed broadband internet and that percentage is likely significantly
higher in low income neighborhoods. There is evidence that this lack of internet
access exacerbates the urban problems of low educational achievement,
unemployment and chronic poverty.
There currently exists a unique widow in time opportunity to fund such a network
utilizing Federal & State program dollars, Bond Act proceeds as well as private
partner matching monies to design, build and operate the network. The approach
recommended herein is one in which the RCSD enters into a partnership with other
public and private partners to proceed with the implementation. It is proposed that
the public assets of the City, RCSD, and Library Systems assets be leveraged
through this partnership to attract a private company or companies to undertake the
construction and operation of the network under the oversight of the public
partners.
The public partners assets, funding streams and regulatory support are significant
and sufficient to attract private matching funds with which to build out the
network. Upon completion of the project the City of Rochester will have a near
ubiquitous high-speed Community network that will benefit its residents
immeasurably.
The preliminary estimate for the cost of the network varies by model. All models
could be offset by private sector matching funds.
In short it is the finding of this study that there exists a compelling need for a
Community Broadband Network, sources of public and private funding with which
to fund its construction and operation and interested public and private partners
with the motivation to undertake the task.
Best Regards,
James McGuinness
President
Millennium Strategies
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i
1. Overview ................................................................................................................ 2
2. Approach ............................................................................................................... 6
3. Demographics ....................................................................................................... 7
4. Background ........................................................................................................... 9
5. Different Models .................................................................................................. 11

6. Capital Expenditures .......................................................................................... 18
7. Design Diagrams ................................................................................................. 36
8. Organization ........................................................................................................ 37
9. Funding ................................................................................................................ 38
10. Sustainability and Operations.......................................................................... 41
11. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 46
Millennium Strategies 2016
Page i
1.
1. OVERVIEW
The Rochester City School District (RCSD) commissioned this study to assess the
feasibility of developing a highspeed broadband network in the City of Rochester to
provide high-speed internet access to their K-12 students and to the greatest extent
possible to all residents of the City of Rochester. It is their intent and belief that such a
network could very likely address the digital divide that exists within the City of
Rochester (as well as most urban centers throughout the country) whereby up to 35% of
households do not have high-speed internet access because of physical network
limitations or due to affordability issues. Many of these households consist of low income
residents in economically distressed neighborhoods and have children in City schools.
The lack of access to high-speed broadband is a limiting factor in the lives of these
residents in educational achievement, employment opportunities and their general
participation in a civil and just society. The Pew Research Group recently found, twothirds of Americans believe that not having a home high-speed internet connection
would be a major disadvantage to finding a job, getting health information or accessing
other key information.1
ABOUT RCSD
The District educates some 28,316 students in grades K-12, 84% of which are eligible
for federal school lunch program. Of the 5 largest school districts RCSD has the highest
poverty rate among them with 22% of their schools at a 90% poverty rate or higher. The
student population is approximately 60% African American, 26% Hispanic, 10% White
and 4% Asian/Native American/East Indian or other. Students speak over 87 different
languages and 10% have limited English language proficiency. The district is further
challenged with a 43% graduation rate2.
The District operates 67 schools and an additional 56 Pre-K sites throughout the City of
Rochester. Over 6,100 people are employed by the District including 3,227 teachers,
464 administrators and 1,267 support personnel. In addition, the district utilizes some
920 substitute teachers in any given year.
PROJECT FUNDING
It is the finding of this study that there currently exists a unique window in time to support
such a development in the City of Rochesters digital infrastructure. By leveraging a
unique confluence of funding sources that already exist or will become available in the
near future, the RCSD along with its strategic partners have an opportunity to encourage
the development of a City wide, high-speed internet broadband network which is
affordable and sustainable. These funding sources include but are not limited to:
Smart Schools Bond Act Funding; The Smart Schools Bond Act was passed in
the 2014-15 Enacted NYS Budget and approved by the voters in a statewide
referendum held during the 2014 General Election on Tuesday, November 4,
2014. The Smart Schools Bond Act (SSBA) authorized the issuance of $2 billion
of general obligation bonds to finance improved educational technology and
infrastructure to improve learning and opportunity for students throughout the
State. The SSBA requires that a Review Board review and approve districts
Smart Schools Investment Plans before any funds may be made available for the
FCC 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Adopted January 28, 2016, Released January 29, 2016This figure is up
from 56 percent in 2010
2
NYSED data.nysed.gov 2014-15 Rochester City School District at a Glance
Page 2
program. The RCSD was allocated $47,234,577 from the SSBA of which roughly
$6 million is being allocated by the district to ensure ubiquitous access to internet
resources by the student population.
Universal Service Administrative Companys E-Rate Program; The E-Rate

program was established by the telecommunications act of 1996 in which the
costs to connect to the internet for school districts is subsidized at a rate of
between 20% and 90%. The Rochester City School District qualifies for discounts
on connectivity services at 90% and qualifies for discounts on equipment costs at
85%. Portions of expanding broadband connectivity within the city may qualify for
E-rate discounts.
New York States New NY Broadband Program; Governor Cuomo created

this $500 million program utilizing funds recaptured from bank settlements to
incentivize the expansion of high-speed broadband access in unserved and
underserved areas. Applications can be submitted between March 1st and April
15th, 2016. Specifically, the program calls for applications for funding to provide
access to broadband at speeds of at least 100 megabits per second (Mbps)
(download) in most places, and 25 Mbps (download) in the most remote
Unserved parts of the State, with priority given to applications that will provide
broadband to Unserved communities, libraries, and Educational Opportunity. As
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. An Unserved area is defined as an area
where broadband service is not available from a wireline or wireless facilitiesbased provider at advertised speeds equal to or higher than 25 Mbps download.
The Program will achieve its goals through public-private sector partnerships,
and will require a private-sector co-investment. The Program will be implemented
by 2018.
Finger Lakes Regional Economic Development Councils (FLREDC)

Successful Bid for the Upstate Regional Initiative (URI); The FLREDC URI
Plan, United for Success: Finger Lakes Forward. was submitted to NYS on
10/5/1015. On December 11, 2015 The Finger Lakes Regional Economic
Development Council (FLREDC) was named an Upstate Revitalization Initiative
(URI) Best Plan Awardee for its new strategic plan. This means the region will
receive $500 million over five years, in addition to $120.1 million in economic
development funds announced through Round V of Governor Andrew M.
Cuomos Regional Economic Development Council competition.
Private Sector Matching Funds; In interviews with the various private sector
stakeholders there was expressed an interest in participating in the Community
Broadband project as a potential capex offset for their network builds in the City
of Rochester. It appears that providing a private equity match to qualify for
matching funding from one or more of the public funding sources is a significant
inducement to potential private sector partners.
Additionally, this study finds that there currently exists proven, state-of-the-art
technology with which to build a high-speed network delivering speeds to meet the
FCCs goal of 25Mbps3 as well as the New York Broadband Program Offices goal of
100Mbps4 of internet access to the users of such a network. Similar networks have
3
4
FCC 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Adopted January 28, 2016, Released January 29, 2016.
New NY Broadband Request for Proposal Guidelines
Page 3
already been deployed in other locations throughout the country. These networks can
also be utilized for the so-called Smart City applications whereby the network is used to
better manage other municipal infrastructure and programs such as street lighting, water
metering, traffic control, public safety and many others with the potential for cost savings
and better service levels to the tax payer. In the course of the study several different
service delivery technology platforms were evaluated including various fiber
technologies, satellite, TV white space, mobile broadband, as well as Wi-Fi.
STATEMENT OF NEED
In 2015 the State of New York, Governor Cuomo committed $500 million in capital to
expand high-speed broadband service to unserved or underserved areas of the state5.
The goal of the program is to ensure that all residents of the State have access to
broadband download speeds of at least 100Mbps, or in some limited cases download
speeds of 25Mbps6.
We believe the definition of unserved areas should be broadened to include those areas
in which although infrastructure may already exist for high speed internet access, the
affordability to that access is limited. Even though an existing provider may be in a given
neighborhood, a large percentage of that neighborhood doesnt have internet access
because they cannot afford the monthly recurring costs charged by the existing provider.
In other words, in addition to unserved and underserved areas, unserved and
underserved populations should be deemed eligible.
The Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany surveyed over
3,000 New York households and determined that 42.6% of households that do not
subscribe to
Broadband Services
cite the affordability
of said service as a
major reason for
abstaining from
subscribing. An
additional 18.6% of
respondents
expressed
afforadibility as a
minor reason,
meaning that
affordability is a
factor for over 60%
of New York State
residents who do not
subscribe to high
speed internet
service.7
The culmination of the aforementioned report concluded with a list of recommendations,
5
NYS Broadband Mapping Project

New NY Broadband Request for Proposal Guidelines
7
Broadband Internet Service Adoption and Use in New York State Households. Prepared by the Center for
Technology in Government University at Albany-SUNY.
6
Page 4
of which the following was listed as the first priority:

Make broadband more affordable for the lower income households in the state.
This can be accomplished by policies to increase competition among providers,
public provision of service in low income or isolated areas, subsidies for low
income households or for providers serving those areas."8
A more recent national study of low and moderate income parents of children ages 6 to
13 supported the Centers findings and concluded that:
Our study makes clear that the primary obstacle preventing greater equity in
access and digital participationat least among families with school aged
childrenis financial. Most surveyed families who do not have computers or
home interent access are not holding back because of a lack of confidence or
interest in what the internet or new tech tools can offer. For most, cost is the
primary reason (emphasis added). Interrupted service is also cost-related as is
having to share devices between too many people to have enough time with
them. And currently, only a small proportion of families are benifiting from
discounted internet services designed to get low-income families whith schoolage children on line.9
Some have suggested that this digitial inequity can be solved by the discounted internet
service offerings of the national MSOs (Multi System Operators i.e. Cable TV
Companies) and ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers i.e. Telephone Companies)
but this is not a solution for Rochester where there are over 2,000 homeless students
enrolled. Further it is questionable if discounted internet service plans are in fact having
the intended consequence. It is estimated that only 6% of low income families nationwide actually ever use these discounted programs.10 Leaving the majority of those who
cannot afford internet access without any solution for inclusion in the digital world.
It is clear that urban centers such as the City of Rochester, are in a precarious situation
with regards to broadband access within the community due to the lack of afforadbility.
This in turn contributes to a downward spiral of a lack of subscriptions to broadband
service preventing cost-justifiable upgrade investments by the incumbents. This resulting
lack of investment by the private sector forbodes a future with internet access speeds
not improving over the next several years in our urben centers. And whereas the
Rochester City School District may be able to afford to deploy a one-to-one intiiative,
there is a glaring inequity between students who may have sufficient home access to
internet resources compared to those students that have no or limited access to the
internet.
Ibid
Rideout, V.J. & Katz, V.S. (2016) Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in lower-income families. A
report of the Families and Media Project. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop
10
Ibid
9
Page 5
2.
2. APPROACH
In the course of conducting the study, stakeholder groups of interest were interviewed to
determine what network and related assets might exist, what potential public and private
sector partners might have interest, what technologies might be used, what funding
sources might be applicable and what business models would be most efficient and cost
effective. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with:
3.
Public Stakeholders:
City of Rochester
Rochester Public Library System
Monroe County Library System
NYS Broadband Program Office
Private Sector Stakeholders:
American Tower
CCI Systems
Cisco
ECC Technologies
Finger Lakes Technology Group
Frontier Communications
Greenlight Networks
LightTower (acquired FiberTech)
Time Warner Cable
WildFire 5G
Windstream
Carlson Wireless
RCSD IT representatives were present at the meetings or were briefed on the content
following the meetings to provide feedback and practical perspective on the input from
each stakeholder. Most meetings were held at RCSD office with only a limited number
of meetings held elsewhere or telephonically. In general, there was a high degree of
interest in the community broadband initiative by the various stakeholders and in actively
participating in the planning, constructing, operating and funding the initiative. There
was no stated opposition to the concept of a community broadband initiative in the City
of Rochester voiced by any of the stakeholders interviewed and in general all meetings
were constructive and cooperative.
Page 6
4.
3. DEMOGRAPHICS
General
The city of Rochester is in the heart of Monroe County. It comprises nearly 30% of the
overall county with recent census data placing the population at 210,461. It is estimated
that nearly half of the City population, or 94,944, are at or below 150% of the national
poverty level.
In 2013, the US Census
Bureau started
collecting data related
to household access to
high speed internet
access. Data related to
this survey show that
out of the 83,944
households within the
city, as many as 28,822
or 34.33% of homes do
not have a subscription
to a high speed internet
service. Extrapolating
this data means as
many as 72,261 city
residents may lack
internet access from
their home. The
number of residents
who are lacking internet access in the city of Rochester is larger than the full population
of many counties within the state.
Page 7
Poverty Levels
The City of Rochester has an extraordinary concentration of its citizens living in poverty.
It ranks No.1 in the percentage of people living below half the federal poverty level and
more than half of Rochesters poor are children it is the poorest U.S. City for its size for
children. Not surprisingly the vast majority of Rochesters poor (57.3%) are not in the
workforce. 11 The following table illustrates distinctly Rochesters elative poverty.
It should further be noted that Rochester is the fifth poorest city among the top 75 metro
areas by population and the second poorest behind Hartford for cities of similar size.
11
Benchmarking Rochester, a study completed by Rochester Area Community Foundation and ACT Rochester.
Page 8
5.
4. BACKGROUND
The City of Rochester has multiple public anchor institutions that can be leveraged to
expand broadband service within and to the community. The anchor institutions we
reviewed include:
City Libraries
City Police and Fire Stations
School District
City Libraries:
There are a total of 10 Libraries located throughout the city. These libraries include
Lincoln, Sully, Charlotte, Maplewood, Lyell, Winton, Monroe, Highland, Arnett, Wheatley
and the Main Library. Each of these facilities has a free internet connection from Time
Warner Cable at 6Mbps. The library branches are connected to the main library via a
20Mbps WAN link through a contract with Lightower at $440 per month per circuit. This
backbone is not robust enough to utilize for the delivery of the broadband services.
However, the libraries could benefit from the implementation of the City Wide Broadband
initiative by utilizing the City Wide network for WAN service and Internet Access. This
could reduce annual connectivity fees before E-rate subsidies by as much as $42,240.
City Facilities:
The City of Rochester operates multiple facilities including police stations, fire stations,
city offices and community centers. In reviewing the geographical locations of these sites
and the existing networks to interconnect these facilities, we noted the following:
1. There is a geographical overlap of City facilities and School District facilities
that do not necessarily garner better reach or distribution of community
broadband.
2. The City owns fiber between facilities and within the city as a whole that was
implemented over multiple years by the water department. The City, in
partnership with the County, is in the midst of a study to inventory the
locations and counts of this existing fiber. These resources could be utilized
for the deployment of the community broadband program but cannot be
factored into this assessment until the cities fiber asset study is completed.
3. The city has multiple police cars with Verizon aircards for connectivity to data
resources. The police department could realize a cost savings of nearly
$10,000 per year through the attrition of just 25 aircards at $40 per month.
The community broadband would need to be reliable and accessible Citywide in order to justify any transition from existing resources to new
resources.
School District:
The school district has a robust Wide Area Network connecting each remote school
and/or facility back to the district headend over a 10Gbps fiber ring. This service is
provided by leased dedicated fiber circuits from Lightower Networks. Utilizing these
anchor institutions, we can extend the services available within the school campus to the
community as a whole. In essence, the school district network would become the
Page 9
backhaul for the community network.

Erate: The district Wide Area Network is funded through the Federal E-rate program and
subsidized at 90%. Any use of the WAN as the backhaul will need to be reviewed with
the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative
Corporation (USAC) to determine how much, if any, of the leased service would need to
be cost allocated.
In the sixth report and order, the FCC authorized schools to allow for community access
of network resources during hours
in which schools are not in session.
Therefore, the argument we will
make is that community access
should be allowed regardless of the
end-users geographic location
within the city. Making use of the
WAN from 3:30 PM to 7:30 AM
should subsequently not have to be
discounted. The only portion of the WAN circuit that would have to be cost-allocated
would be that portion of the WAN circuit utilized during school hours. School hours also
do not occur during the weekends, summer breaks, holidays, etc., yet the circuits are
available regardless of whether or not school is in session. The State of NY requires that
there be 180 school days in a given year, and as such the total cost allocation should
include this factor in the equation and multiply the result by 180 school days divided by
365 calendar days. In addition, the community access, will not utilize the full WAN circuit,
but rather a fraction of the 10GBps circuit. Utilizing the formula above, with a circuit cost
of $735 per month and assuming 2GBps bandwidth utilization per circuit, the worst case
scenario for cost allocation would be $24.16 per month per circuit12. However, our goal is
to convince the SLD and the FCC that no cost allocation would be deemed necessary.
NETWORK PRIORITIZATION: Although the district is eager to expand services within
the community, it cannot come at the expense of ensuring adequate access to the
student and teacher population. In other words, measures and technologies need to be
implemented to guarantee quality of service, bandwidth allocation and priorities.
NETWORK ACCESS: Currently the district WAN circuits are terminated in Cisco
equipment that reside within each school buildings Main Distribution Frame (MDF.) The
extension of Fiber from these locations to the surrounding neighborhoods near each
school will also need connectivity to the building core switch. Although the first phase of
implementation will be a Best effort implementation in which the SLA to end users will
be met as soon as possible, subsequent phases will require quality response times.
These quality response times may necessitate off hour access to school facilities,
specifically data closets, as well as access to some network electronics. One design
consideration would be to have outdoor cabinets mounted to the exterior of the school
facilities for the distribution of fiber and electronics so that maintenance and support
would not be hindered by lack of access to school buildings.
12
This means that the school district may incur an additional cost for WAN circuits if the SLD determines that any
of the costs of the WAN are deemed ineligible for E-rate discounts for the portion of the traffic that is related to data
transport DURING school hours. In other words, the total cost of the $735 per month WAN circuit that the district
receives a 90% discount on may be reduced by $24.16 as ineligible sue to the fact that this portion of the WAN is
being utilized for ineligible services.
Page 10
6.
5. DIFFERENT MODELS
Several internet access delivery platforms were evaluated and deemed incompatible
with the RCSDs goals for the Community Broadband Network. One of the primary
reasons these solutions are not considered as feasible is that they are predominantly an
annual operating expenditure through subscription charges to the service and not a
system or solution that could be built for an paid for through capital expenditures. These
platforms include the following:
Fixed Satellite Broadband
This delivery platform was not recommended because of the limiting factor of not being
able to provide the minimum speeds of between 25 mg to 100mg. The FCC recently
reported that their Form 477 data show that no fixed satellite broadband service
reaches the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark as of the reporting period and cannot
therefore be considered an advanced telecommunications service.
Mobile (Cellular) Broadband
While mobile phone use seems to have reached near ubiquity in adoption levels even
among low income users, there are several limiting factors in its use as substitution for a
fixed internet connection. For example, mobile phones are portable and thus smaller
than their fixed counterparts. The Pew Research Group found that the size of cell
phones and other mobile devices limits the computational abilities of mobile devices
and makes their interfaces smaller, especially screens. It follows that data-intensive
activities such as telecommuting or the highest-quality multimedia experiences are
generally inappropriate for mobile devices.13
The FCC stated the limitation of mobile broadband access succinctly in their recently
released 2016 Broadband Progress Report:
Access to broadband has become essential for students in all levels of
education. Fixed broadband access, combined with cutting edge educational
tools and content, are transforming the educational landscape in America. Mobile
broadband access does not currently provide the speeds or capacity that schools
and libraries need. Particularly given ongoing disparities in broadband
deployment and adoption, it is critical that our Nations students have access to
high-speed broadband to effectively participate in the digital world.
Pew Research Group also found that when compared with other smartphone owners,
smartphone-dependent consumers14 are less likely to own a computer or tablet, less
likely to have a bank account or health insurance, and less likely to own their current
residence.15 That report also found that although some 13 percent of Americans with a
household income of less than $30,000 per year are smartphone dependent, only one
percent of Americans with an annual income of $75,000 or more rely solely on mobile
broadband.16 These data suggest that the decision to rely exclusively on mobile
broadband service is frequently driven by financial necessity, rather than the view that
fixed and mobile broadband are adequate substitutes for one another.17
13
Pew Smartphones Report April 2015.

Pew Smartphones April 2015 Report at 3-4.
15
Pew Smartphones April 2015 at 18.
16
Id. At 17.
17
Id. At 18.
14
Page 11
Models to Consider:
There are three models that need to be considered for deployment. A combination of
models may be utilized. These models include:
Fiber to the Home
Fiber fed Wireless
TV White Space Wireless
Regardless of the model utilized, the schools Wide Area Network will be employed as
the backhaul. The figure below denotes all of the school district facilities that are
connected to the district head end.
Each circle is scaled at a half mile
radius. This visibly shows that a high
percentage of the residential areas
within the city are within a half mile of
the district and therefore a half mile of
a 10Gbps backbone.
During the investigative process we
reviewed the facilities and
connectivity of other anchor
institutions. However, after mapping
the firehouses, libraries, police
facilities and city buildings with the
map of the schools, there was more
of an overlap and not many sites that
offered any improved geographical
presence that wouldnt already be
met by the school WAN. In addition,
the network connectivity between
these facilities would need to be
upgraded before community access
could exploit any extra bandwidth for
backhaul.
In addition to utilizing the 10GBps
Wide Area network as the backhaul,
additional network electronics would
need to be purchased at each of the
school MDFs to light up the fiber
deployed. This cost is estimated at
$1.8 million and is delineated in the
next chapter.
Fiber to the Home (FTTH): There are three primary types of architecture for Fiber to the
Home Deployments. The first is referred to as Home Run Fiber, the second is Active
Star and the last is Passive Star.
Home Run Fiber: Home Run Fiber is exactly how it sounds. Every house would
have dedicated fiber strands from a central office to the end user. The benefits of
such an architecture is that the end-users bandwidth is only limited by the
network electronics on either end. The second benefit is that there is no need to
Page 12
power any equipment on the poles. However, there

is a major drawback, in that such a design is
extremely expensive.
Active Star: This type of architecture places a node

in between the central office and the end user. There
is a feeder fiber from the central office to the node
and a switch at the node to light up the distributed
fiber to the homes. In our scenario the node could be
each of the schools. The benefit of this type of
architecture is it reduces the amount of fiber required
for a FTTH deployment. The drawback is each node
would require power. A single node typically serves
up to 1000 customers.
Passive Star: This architecture is also know as a Passive Optical Network

(PON) and utillizes optical splitters at the pole in between the fiber feed and
multiple homes. This design reduces costs by minimizing fiber runs and the need
for active equipment on the pole.
The ideal Fiber to the Home architecture for the city of Rochester would be a
combination of both the Active and Passive Star solutions in which the school within the
neighboorhood would act as the node in the Active Star and from this node we would
utilize a PON to distribute services to the homes. However, this deployment in and by
itself is not affordable.
In 2010, Google started deploying Fiberhoods in Kansas City. The cost to have a fiber
pass a home is estimated at $616 per home. The cost to connect a home is $250 per
home for a total cost of $868. The service fee is $36 per month. In the Rochester Area, a
company by the
Provider
CosttoPass
Costto
TotalCost
name of
Connect
GreenLight is also
building fiber to
Google
$616.00
$250.00
$866.00
the homes in
Greenlight
700.00
350.00
1,050.00
specific
Fiberhoods.
Avg
658.00
300.00
958.00
Although we do
not know the
Householdsin
83,944
exact costs for the

Rochester
GreenLight
buildouts, we
Householdsthat
28,822
know that the

needAccess
charge is a
Estimatefor
$55,235,152
$8,646,600
$63,881,752
onetime nonRochester
recurring fee of
$100 and a monthly recurring fee of $50 per month. Both companies utilize a presubscription model in which the fiberhood is not built until a certain level of committed
subscriptions are made by future customers. The cost to deploy fiber to the home for
ONLY those households that do not subscribe to broadband internet maybe as high as
$63,881,752. To connect all households it could jump another $17 million to a grand
total of $80 million.
It should be noted however, that these costs assume the typical design of creating a
Page 13
separate backhaul to a central office. The $55,235,152 Cost to Pass could be

drastically reduced if a provider was willing to utilize the district schools as backhaul and
connection points. By utilizing these anchor institions the Cost to Pass could be
reduced to $12 million with an estimated total cost for a fiber to the home rollout
estimated at $38 million.
A final consideration is
that if Rochester where to RochesterCityFTTH
build the infrastructure for
ROIwithSubscriptionOffset
a Fiber fed Wireless
solution and enable a
FibertotheHome(CosttoPass)
$12,000,000
vendor partner to utilize
that infrastructure, that
FibertotheHome(CosttoConnect)
$25,183,200
vendor partner may look
TotalCost
$37,183,200
to offer 100Mbps
broadband service to the
ProviderCapitalContribution
$20,000,000
65% of households that
NewNYBroadbandGrant
$17,183,200
can afford broadband
53.79%
subscriptions. With a 20% ProviderMatchPercentage
subscription commitment
from the 53,724
SubscriptionRevenueforFreeService(5Mbps)
$
households that currently 20%ofHousholdsthatmaysubscribe
10,745
subscribe to some sort of
MonthlyCostfor100MbpsService
$48.50
internet service, there is
MonthlySubscription
$521,133
an estimated revenue
39
potential of $521,133 per NumberofmonthsforROI
month or $6,253,596 per
$20,324,168
year at a subscription rate
of $48.50. This model will only work if the potential service provider is willing to utilize the
district schools as the anchor institutions to connect and be the backhaul to a central
location for distribution of internet service. Second, the subscription rate has to be at
least 20% of the total number of potential subscribers. Third, the service provider would
be required to provide free service to all housholds at a throttled down rate. This model
does not take into account other revenue streams that the potential service provider
could utilize such as advertising and data mining for users of the free service. At a 20%
subscrition rate the ROI for the investment is estimateed at 39 months. Vendors who
may want to provide this service include but are not limited to Frontier, Greenlight and
even Google.
The large question that needs to be answered is what would motivate houseolds to
subscribe. The first reason is that although the free service may still be exposed to
advertising every 24 hours per log in as well as be routed through the districts internet
filter. The second reason is that the free service would be throttled down to somewhere
between 5 and 25Mbps. For these two reasoins, some residents may opt to pay for nonfiltered, advertisement free and higher speed access.
Page 14
Fiber fed Wireless: WiFi is ubiquitous. Utilizing the same models described earlier, the
city could deploy wireless and utilize the schools Wide area Network as the backhaul.
Hardened outdoor WAPs would be strategically placed within the neighboorhood of the
nearest school fed
by fiber and either
powered at the end
user house or via a
coaxial power
supply. The benefit
of this deployment is
that part of the Active
and Passive Fiber
network would be
built so that if
another service
provider desires to
utilize this network it
would minimize the
costs to connect
each house and
would require a
significantly less commitment for subscriptions. The figure to the right depicts the
neighborhood around school 33. Each red circle denotes a WAP that has a coverage
radius of 250 feet. Each WAP would serve between 10 and 20 households connected
back to the network at 1Gbps. Throughput could meet the New New York Broadband
goal of 100Mbps and would exceed the FCC goal of 25Mbps.
TV White Space Wireless: TV White Space utilizes the available unlicensed
wireless spectrum of between 470 MHz to 790 Mhz. This spectrum was made available
in 2010 by the FCC and is currently underutilized. The technology enables a single radio
to broadcast nearly a 100 times further than a traditional Wireless Access Point. This
spectrum was part of the old
broadcast television network that
functioned for years and its greatest
benefit is that the higher frequency
enables extremely reliable
penetration around and through
both natural and manmade terrain.
Solutions utilizing TV White Space
would require 1 to 2 base stations
at the anchor institution which
would be connected to the School
District WAN and broadcast up to
384Mbps per base station. In order
to receive the broadcast, each
housing unit would require a
terminal which would translate the
TV White Space to 802.11 n or ac
so that end user devices within the
housing unit could access the internet resources.
Page 15
Preliminary pricing estimates that the 39 Zone anchor institutions would require an
estimated 2 base stations for a cost per anchor institution of $12,500 to $15,000. Each
Housing unit would require a terminal at $100 per unit for a cost of $8,500,000. Total
cost of housing unit terminals and base stations for a fully deployed solution is estimated
at $9,085,000. If the school district where to only offer this service to housing units in
which students reside than the total cost would be reduced to $2,285,000.
The solution is viable in that it would enable connectivity, but that connectivity back to
the district backhaul might be as low as 1.5mbps. In addition, with the high density of
housing units within the City of Rochester, a full deployment may only be able to connect
between 20,000 and 25,000 housing units based on the fact that the generation of
equipment under development is capped at 250 users per base station.18 This
technology is emerging and as such bears watching, however throughput and the end
user experience is dependent upon available channels and the maximum number of
connections per base station.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Cons
FTTH
Limitless
Bandwidth
Low Maintenance
Highest Cost
Fixed Solution
Fiber Fed Wireless

Affordable
Minimum of
25Mbps
Cellular Offload
Non-Fixed Solution
Potential Signal Loss
Higher Maintenance
TV White Space
Affordable
High Penetration
Low Maintenance
1.5Mbps
Might not be eligible
for New NY
Broadband Program
Direct Connections to City Facilities: The Smart Schools Bond will help fund
connectivity to Libraries and Recreation Centers and the Libraries are also eligible for Erate discounts. In reviewing the connectivity and assets of the school district, library
system, recreation centers and the Rochester Housing Authority it is clear that sharing
services would be efficient and fiscally prudent. The district and the city are already
sharing services when libraries and recreation centers are on the same campus or in
close proximity to each other.
Because two out of the three models would include pulling fiber from schools into the
community, it is prudent to make sure that fiber is also pulled to directly connect the
Libraries, Recreation Centers and the Rochester Housing Facilities to the internet and to
each other via the district backhaul. Total estimated cost for these direct connections
would be $542,346. Equipment already exists at the Libraries and Recreation Centers to
make use of a direct 1GBps connection. The equipment needed for the facilities of the
Rochester Housing Authority could be provided from the equipment that is removed from
the schools that will be under construction as a part of Phase 2 of the Rochester
Schools Modernization Program.
It should be noted that although the connections to the Library facilities are eligible for Erate discounts, these potential E-rate discounts are not included in the cost justification
of the proposed plan.
18
Graphic utilized from Carlson Wireless presentation.
Page 16
City Facilities:
Zone
Anchor Site Library
Rec Center
Housing
Zone 36
Zone 33
Zone 15
Zone 18
Zone 16
Zone 35
Zone 39
Zone 17
Zone 28
Zone 20
Zone 35
Zone 39
Zone 11
Zone 4
Zone 9
Zone 21
Zone 38
Zone 21
Zone 31
Zone 19
Zone 10
Zone 26
Zone 37
Zone 22
Zone 3
Zone 36
Zone 30
Zone 8
Zone 11
Zone 25
Wilson
Arnett Branch
Monroe
Highland Branch
Marshall
x
Edison
x
School 7
Maplewood
School 10
x
School 44
x
School 34
x
School 28
Winton Branch
School 54
x
School 10
x
School 44
x
School 50
x
Douglas
x
Lincoln (22) x
School 20
x
School 29
x
School 20
x
School 23
Monroe Branch
School 43
Lyell Branch
School 8
x
East
School 34
Wheatley Branch
School 17
X
Freddie Thomax
Wilson
x
School 1
x
Franklin
x
School 50
x
School of the Ax
School 16 Rec Center

Riverview Commons
LaGrange
x
Maplewood Rose Garden
Genesee Valley
Southwest
x
Humboldt CC
Edgerton CC
St Monicas
Gardiner
x
Norton Villiage
x
x
Danforth CC
x
x
x
Avenue D CC
Kennedy Tower
x
X
Lexington Court
Harriet Tubman Estates
x
x
Glenwood Gardens
x
Lake Tower
x
x
Parliament Arms
x
Bronson Court
Lena Gannt Est
Danforth Tower
Holland Townhouses
x
x
x
Federal St Town Houses
x
x
X
x
x
x
Hudson River Tower
University Tower
Adams St
Cambell St
North St CC
Flint St
Lake Riley Lodge
Carter St Comm Center
x
x
Total Fiber by Entity
Library Fiber Rec Fiber
RHA Fiber
0.526
1.51
0
0
0.23
0
0
0
0.752
0.69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.687
0.681
0
0.884
0.744
1.429
0
0.712
1.316
1.228
0
0.363
0.42
1.099
1.082
0
0.962
0
0
0.838
0
1.308
0
0
1.394
0.442
0
0
1.135
0
0
0
0
0.992
0
0.884
0.843
0
0.709
0
0.658
0.621
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.618
0.599
0.575
0.484
0.454
0
0
0
0
0.655
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.434
0.358
5.697
14.465
9.154
Cost per Mile of Fiber $ 18,500.00 $ 18,500.00 $ 18,500.00

City Connection Costs $ 105,394.50 $ 267,602.50 $ 169,349.00
Grand Total
$ 542,346.00
Page 17
6. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
The next several pages denote the capital expenditures that are calculated for the Fiber
fed Wireless Model. Total expenditures for the Fiber Fed Wireless model are projected
to not to exceed $16,828,916.36.
RochesterCityCommunityWiFi
TotalCapitalCosts
Zone
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Zone6
Zone7
Zone8
Zone9
Zone10
Zone11
Zone12
Zone13
Zone14
Zone15
Zone16
Zone1739
Wireless
FiberDrawing Drawing
WB01F
WB01W
WB02F
WB02W
WB03F
WB03W
WB04F
WB04W
WB05F
WB05W
WB06F
WB06W
WB07F
WB07W
WB08F
WB08W
WB09F
WB09W
WB10F
WB10W
WB11F
WB11W
WB12F
WB12W
WB13F
WB13W
WB14F
WB14W
WB15F
WB15W
WB16F
WB16W
WB17F
WB17W
Fiber
Waps
6.589
91
7.459
106
6.861
90
7.441
97
8.094
105
8.22
90
8.136
71
10.292
103
11.728
108
14.71
117
6.53
51
6.059
30
9.416
132
7.331
66
15.086
157
11.57
122
209.1879
2208
Cost
$335,239.07
$380,010.02
$339,080.39
$363,572.69
$391,359.99
$367,191.30
$331,538.76
$433,255.62
$471,884.28
$549,631.95
$262,618.65
$215,391.02
$466,900.56
$305,962.34
$628,809.51
$493,606.05
$9,108,074.99
Subtotal
CityFacilities
CoreFilteratSchool50
WirelessController
CoreEquipmentMaintenanceUpgradeto5yrs
$15,444,127.16
$542,346.00
$150,000
$150,000
$542,443
GrandTotal $16,828,916.36
Page 18
Zone1CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
CoreSwitchpriceestimate
Catalyst4500X40Port10G
WSC4500X40X Ent.Services,FrttoBk,No
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
SNTC24X7X4Catalyst4500X
1
C45X40XE
40Port10GEnt.Service
C4KXPWR
Catalyst4500X750WACfront
1
750ACR
tobackcoolingpowersupply
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
NEMA515toIECC158ftUS
CAT4500XUniversalCrypto
Image
1
S45XUK938E
IPBasetoEnt.Services
licensefor32PortCatalyst
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
1000BASESXSFPXCVRMOD
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
C4KXNM8SFP+ NetworkModule
6.589 Miles of Fiber from School to each WAP
6.589 Overlashing of coaxial cable for power
91 Wireless Access Points with Installation
Procurement, Design and PM
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$121,896.50
$7,906.80
$154,700.00
$15,964
$335,239.07
Page 19
Zone2CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$137,991.50
$8,950.80
$180,200.00
$18,096
$380,010.02
Page 20
Zone3CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$126,928.50
$8,233.20
$153,000.00
$16,147
$339,080.39
Page 21
Zone4CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$137,658.50
$8,929.20
$164,900.00
$17,313
$363,572.69
Page 22
Zone5CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$149,739.00
$9,712.80
$178,500.00
$18,636
$391,359.99
Page 23
Zone6CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$152,070.00
$9,864.00
$153,000.00
$17,485
$367,191.30
Page 24
Zone7CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$150,516.00
$9,763.20
$120,700.00
$15,788
$331,538.76
Page 25
Zone8CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$190,402.00
$12,350.40
$175,100.00
$20,631
$433,255.62
Page 26
Zone9CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$216,968.00
$14,073.60
$183,600.00
$22,471
$471,884.28
Page 27
Zone10CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$272,135.00
$17,652.00
$198,900.00
$26,173
$549,631.95
Page 28
Zone11CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$120,805.00
$7,836.00
$86,700.00
$12,506
$262,618.65
Page 29
Zone12CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$112,091.50
$7,270.80
$51,000.00
$10,257
$215,391.02
Page 30
Zone13CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$174,196.00
$11,299.20
$224,400.00
$22,233
$466,900.56
Page 31
Zone14CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$135,623.50
$8,797.20
$112,200.00
$14,570
$305,962.34
Page 32
Zone15CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$279,091.00
$18,103.20
$266,900.00
$29,943
$628,809.51
Page 33
Zone16CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
1
ES
P/S
CONSNTP
1
C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
1
750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
1
750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
1
US
Image
1
S45XUK938E
1
C4500XIPES
4500X
40 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
1
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $21,120

$5,184 $3,732 $3,732
$2,000 $960 $960
$2,000 $960 $960

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $8,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$214,045.00
$13,884.00
$207,400.00
$23,505
$493,606.05
Page 34
Zone1739CapitalCosts
Qty.
Mfg.Part#
ProductDescription
23 ES
P/S
CONSNTP
23 C45X40XE
C4KXPWR
23 750ACR
C4KXPWR
tobackcooling2ndPWR
23 750ACR/2
supply
CABUS515C15
23 US
Image
23 S45XUK938E
23 C4500XIPES
4500X
920 GLCSXMMD=
MMF850NMDOM
23 C4KXNM8SFP+ NetworkModule
SUBTOTAL
UnitList
Price
UnitCost
Ext.Cost
$44,000 $21,120 $485,760

$5,184 $3,732 $85,836
$2,000 $960 $22,080
$2,000 $960 $22,080

$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$500 $200 $184,000
$ $
$18,500
$1,200
$1,700
$
$3,869,975.69
$251,025.45
$3,753,600.00
$433,718
$9,108,074.99
Page 35
7.
7. DESIGN DIAGRAMS
There are multiple diagrams that where utilized for the development of this feasibility
study. These drawings can be retrieved by emailing Roch@millenniumstrategies.com.
The following drawings include:
Drawing Number
Drawing Description
WB-00A
Zone Diagrams - South
WB-00B
Zone Diagrams - North
WB-00C
City Facilities Libraries, Rec Centers Housing
WB-01F
Zone 1 Fiber
WB-01W
Zone 1Wireless
WB-02F
Zone 2 Fiber
WB-02W
Zone 2Wireless
WB-03F
Zone 3 Fiber
WB-03W
Zone 3 Wireless
WB-04F
Zone 4 Fiber
WB-04W
Zone 4 Wireless
WB-05F
Zone 5 Fiber
WB-05W
Zone 5 Wireless
WB-06F
Zone 6 Fiber
WB-06W
Zone 6 Wireless
WB-07F
Zone 7 Fiber
WB-07W
Zone 7 Wireless
WB-08F
Zone 8 Fiber
WB-08W
Zone 8 Wireless
WB-09F
Zone 9 Fiber
WB-09W
Zone 9 Wireless
WB-10F
Zone 10 Fiber
WB-10W
Zone 10 Wireless
WB-11F
Zone 11 Fiber
WB-11W
Zone 11 Wireless
WB-12F
Zone 12 Fiber
WB-12W
Zone 12 Wireless
Page 36
8.
8. ORGANIZATION
The organization of the program is still under development. It will include an oversite
board and vendor partners. The recommendations from this report include the following:
There should be a group assigned for Oversite, herein referred to as an oversite

committee. This group should be comprised of City personnel, school district
personnel and other constituents.
The oversite committee should review and approve all endeavors of the
public/private partners contracted for installation and maintenance.
The Oversite committee should be responsible for the approval of expenses as

accrued and should be responsible for accounting for all grants, revenue, and
expenditures.
The vendor partners will be responsible for support, maintenance and ensuring
customer satisfaction and the costs to guarantee that all clients and customers
needs are being adequately met.
The vendor partner will find alternative funding resources such as advertising, data
mining and cellular offset to subsidize the cost for ensuring highly reliable and
adequate service.
The vendor partner will contract with and utilize revenues from cellular providers and
other utilities to offset support costs.
The oversite committee will only exist to ensure that the implementation is on time
and that the needs of the customers and constituents are being met. The time
commitment of said members of the committee will be less than 8 hours per quarter.
Page 37
9.
9. FUNDING
The funding for the capital expenditures are split between two major funding sources.
The first funding source is the New NY Broadband Program and the second Funding
source is the Smart School Bond.
New NY Broadband Grant
The New NY Broadband Program requires a large match for eligibility of funding. The
program was designed to help subsidize capital expenditures for private companies to
upgrade their systems to meet
the bandwidth demands of the RochesterCityCommunityWiFi
TotalCapitalOffset
future. However, the program
was not designed to
completely pay for private
institutions to upgrade their
TotalCosts
$16,828,916
networks and as such requires NewNYBroadbandProgram
$10,730,229
a match from applicants. The
SmartSchoolBond
$6,098,688
goal of the match is 50%, with
$(0)
some projects being funded at NetCost
a higher rate and some being
NewNYBroadbandMatch
$8,414,458
funded at a lower rate.
SmartSchoolBond
$6,098,688
With a total anticipated cost of
$16,828,916, the 50% match
would be equal to $8,414,458.
MonetizationofBackhaul
MonetizationofInternet
$2,016,000
$180,000
$8,294,688
This assessment calls for an

MatchPercentage
49.288%
allocation of $6,098,688 from
the Smart Schools Bond Act to make up a majority of the match. In addition, other items
have been calculated into the match because they are contributing factors and the
foundation for connectivity. These items are already installed and paid for on an ongoing
basis by the school district but are utilized for connectivity and as such should be
counted towards the match. In other words, since the implementation of the broadband
solution requires these services, and these services are being provided to the program
at no additional cost, then these services should be monetized and included in the
States interpretation for match.
The first item to monetize is the backhaul between the anchor institutions. 39 schools,
(anchor institutions), will be utilized to transport users back to the central office and to
the district backup site. This means that 40 WAN circuits are required for the project to
be successful. These WAN circuits are already installed and necessary for school district
requirements and cost about $700 per month per circuit. Assuming 6 years of initial
operation, the monetization of the backhaul is estimated at $2,016,000.
The second item to monetize is the connectivity to the internet. Although we are
suggesting that we add an additional internet circuit to the design, the existing internet
circuit will also be utilized and therefore should be monetized. At $30,000 per year for 6
years, the monetization of the internet circuit is estimated at $180,000
Total match percentage would therefore be 49.29%.
Page 38
Smart Schools Bond

The Smart Schools Bond is funding available to school districts across the state to help
enable the districts to upgrade facilities and ensure that all students have access to
technology and resources. The Rochester City School District has been allocated $47
million in funding.
Community access is eligible for funding. However, the guidelines lean towards only
funding municipal owned facilities and do not take into account a city wide deployment of
broadband. Although the goals of this plan mirror those of the Smart Schools Bond Act,
negotiations and lobbying for accepting this plan as fully eligible will be required.
Conservatively, however, an argument can already be made that a large portion of this
project is already eligible for the Smart Schools Bond.
The Funding Plan
First, a large portion of the equipment needed will reside at each school utilized as the
anchor institution within the neighborhood. This Core Equipment is $1,356,108. Second,
Libraries and Rec Centers that connect to the network are also eligible for Smart
Schools Bond Funding and equate to $105,394 and $267,102 respectfully. In addition,
any municipally owned facility is eligible for Smart Schools Bond funding if the facility
and connectivity can be proven to improve student connectivity. The cost to connect to
the housing authority facilities is estimated at $169,349. Third, the fiber work within the
schools and on school
SmartSchoolBond
property would be eligible
including terminations,
EquipmentatSchools
$1,356,108
testing, installation and
materials and equate to
CoreFilteratSchool50
$150,000
$1,262,169. Lastly, a
WirelessController
$150,000
large portion of the
CoreEquipmentMaintenanceUpgradeto5yrs
$542,443
remaining costs of the
LibraryConnectivityAllocation
$105,394
project benefit students.
RecCenterAllocation
$267,602
With 30,000 students
HousingAuthorityConnection
$169,349
living in the city of
Rochester that has a
FiberworkatSchools
$1,262,169
population of 200,000
$2,264,972
PortionofProjectdedicatedtostudents
people, then it can be
said that 15% of these
$6,268,037
costs ($2,264,972) are
also eligible for Smart Bond Funding.
An argument can and should be made to State Education Department (SED) that
regardless of categorization of services, it is our belief that the planned deployment is
eligible for smart schools funding19. However, even if the SED does not accept that
argument, there is no denying that when you categorize the services for work at schools,
libraries, rec centers and add into the equation the portion of the project dedicated to
students, then a minimum of $6,098,688 would be eligible for the Smart Schools Bond.
19
It should be noted that the opinions of funding availability need to be validated. The guidelines for the Smart
Schools Bond act did not contemplate a city wide broadband initiative, and as such may not be fully qualified under
current guidelines. This funding resource needs to be approved by SED and arguments need to be made by the
school district that such an investment should be qualified and justified if the district can prove that this type of
connectivity can improve student connectivity and therefore improve education goals and objectives.
Page 39
The FLREDC URI funding could also be tapped to offset any items of the plan that are
not eligible for Smart Schools Bond Act funding. There is a specific reference in the URI
plan in the section outlining the Rochester Regional Fund and its year-one priorities,
which specifically state that potential projects could include a downtown broadband
initiative in low income areas of the city by augmenting funding from the New NY
Broadband Program.
Page 40
10. 10. SUSTAINABILITY AND OPERATIONS

Wi-Fi Model OPEX
Although it has been demonstrated that the Capital Expense for the offering of
Broadband Service to all constituents of the City of Rochester is affordable, there are
operating expenses that need to be budgeted for and revenue streams that need to be
explored to ensure smooth operations of the system. Maintenance, Customer Support,
operational expenses such as internet access, licenses, etc. cannot be ignored. In
addition, there are potential revenue streams that can assist in offsetting these
operational expenses.
The tables below denote the annual operating expenses related to a full deployment of a
Community Wi-Fi solution. It is estimated that the total operating cost before any cost
avoidance is equal to $541,732 per year.
TotalOperatingCosts
Jan2018
Dec2018
Description
1GbpsInternetService
EquipmentReplacement
FiberMaintenance(Break/Fix)
WAPPowerCost
EndUserSupport
ErateCostAllocation
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2023
Dec2023
5YearTotal
$
3,250,393
$
$
$253,440
$187,200
$60,000
$
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2022
Dec2022
TotalOperatingCosts $541,732 $541,732 $541,732 $541,732 $541,732 $541,732

$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2021
Dec2021
$144,000
$750,000
$1,050,000
$224,640
$1,050,000
$
31,753
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2020
Dec2020
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
CostAvoidance
LibraryConnectivity
RecCenterConnectivity
PoliceAircards
FireStationConnectivity
$24,000
$125,000
$175,000
$37,440
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2019
Dec2019
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
TotalCostAvoidance $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440

TotalOperatingCostafterCostAvoidance $458,292 $458,292 $458,292 $458,292 $458,292 $458,292
$500,640
$
$2,749,753
Internet Service Although the district has a significant connection to the

internet at its core, this connection will not be sufficient to handle all of the
potential users connected to the network. Therefore, additional internet service
should be contracted for to augment and supplement this service. It should be
noted that we believe the internet access would have to grow to a 10Gbps
subscription, but we only added an additional 1Gbps connection. It is our goal to
have the E-rate program actually subsidize any increase in internet subscriptions
so that although the cost would go up it would be offset by qualifying that service
for E-rate subsidies.
Equipment Maintenance The RFPs that would be issued and the subsequent
contracts that would be negotiated with vendor partners will include upgrades to
the hardware for 5 year maintenance. However, it is prudent to budget for
equipment replacement and allocate funds for future replacement so that the
system will be functional long beyond the initial 5 years.
Fiber Maintenance For the most part, maintenance on the fiber infrastructure
would be minimal. However, there will be fiber cuts, pole breaks, splicing issues,
Page 41
etc. that need to be accounted for and budgeted.
Power Consumption Although the WAPs will be powered via low voltage
copper, the WAPs will consume significant electricity. The utility bill for each
anchor institution within each zone will increase less then $100 per month and
may seem insignificant. However, with 39 anchor institutions utilized, the annual
increase in power consumption for the school district will increase and is
budgeted at $37,440 per year.
End User Support Neither the district, libraries or the City have the personnel
to address and handle any end user issues that are apt to arise. Although service
will be best effort, end users will have questions, technical issues and
connectivity concerns that will need to be addressed. Therefore we need to
budget for the annual cost to support the end users. This is estimated at a
contract cost of $175,000.
E-rate Cost Allocation As was mentioned previously, the E-rate program

allows for community access to district resources during off school hours.
Utilizing our proprietary allocation equation, we anticipate this annual cost to the
district for the utilization of the district WAN at $5,292 per year.
Library Cost Avoidance The Libraries already connect to each other through
the main library branch via existing WAN links. These links will no longer be
necessary and as such would reduce the operating cost of the Library system
and should be budgeted as an offset to the overall cost.
Rec Center Cost Avoidance The Recreation Centers need better connectivity
for voice and data and have contracted services with telecommunication
providers and where the Centers are on the same campus of a school share
connectivity. However all centers need connectivity and these other links will not
be required and as such should be budgeted as an offset to the overall cost.
Police Air Cards Any initiative or monthly recurring cost for police officers to
connect from their patrol car to centralized services can be avoided by enabling
these officers to rather connect via the wireless network. Any air card monthly
recurring costs can therefore be avoided and as such should be an offset to the
overall cost.
Page 42
WiFi Revenue Offset

There are multiple revenue streams that can be tapped once the city wide network is
built. It is estimated that in the first year of operations that $408,000 could be realized
and $648,000 per year thereafter for the wireless model. The goal of the program is to
offer broadband services to the City as a whole, and to ensure that the operations of
such an offering is sustainable. The true goal is not to make revenue, but to offset any
costs so that the long term operations of the system will have an annual net cost to the
district and the City of $0.00.
Therefore, when the RFPs are issued, they will include and look for potential vendor
partners who will maintain the network and all operating costs and offset any charges
with the potential revenue streams. These revenue stream include, but are limited to the
Revenue
Jan2018
Dec2018
Description
Advertising
CellularOffload
DataAnalytics(AllbutStudents)
MeterReading(RG&EandWater)
Subscriptions(NoFilter&NoAds)
$120,000
$240,000
$60,000
$108,000
$120,000
Jan2020
Dec2020
$120,000
$240,000
$60,000
$108,000
$120,000
Jan2021
Dec2021
$120,000
$240,000
$60,000
$108,000
$120,000
Jan2022
Dec2022
$120,000
$240,000
$60,000
$108,000
$120,000
Jan2023
Dec2023
5YearTotal
$120,000
$240,000
$60,000
$108,000
$120,000
$660,000
$1,440,000
$300,000
$648,000
$600,000
TotalPotentialRevenue $408,000 $648,000 $648,000 $648,000 $648,000 $648,000
$3,648,000
TotalRevenueminusCosts
SchoolDistrictOffset
$60,000
$240,000
$
$108,000
$
Jan2019
Dec2019
$(50,292) $189,708 $189,708 $189,708 $189,708 $189,708

$50,292
0
0
0 $
0
$898,247
$50,292
following:
Advertising The network will be free for all constituents of the City. Students
will access the network without advertisements or data collection. However, all
other users will be subject to advertisements to log on to the system on a daily
basis. The advertisement may be a 30 second commercial per every 24 hour log
in. We estimated conservatively that this would generate $60,000 in the first year
and $120,000 per year after. It would be the vendor partners job to find the
advertisements and place them per login at the discretion and guidance of the
City and District. Any revenues that they receive would be utilized to offset
operational costs.
Cellular Offload Cellular phone companies are having a difficult time keeping
up with the demand of data and the burden that such demand is having on their
4g cellular networks. Therefore, they have developed technology that
automatically routes data traffic onto available WiFi networks when such
networks are available. By enabling our vendor partner to open up the City Wide
Wireless network for this cellular offload, they could generate additional revenue
streams to offset their cost to operate the network. Assuming that 10% of cellular
users would offload 1Gb of data per month, we conservatively estimated that the
cellular offload could generate $240,000 per year from the cellular service
companies to the vendor partner.
Page 43
Data Analytics This free service for end users, other than students, will
contain a wealth of data that data miners will pay for. It is the same model as
Facebook in which a large revenue stream is mining the data for spending habits,
interests, etc. We estimate that conservatively this data could be worth at least
$60,000 per year that the vendor partner could auction to other interested parties
to help offset annual operating costs. Because data will start to accumulate until
many users are connected to the network, we do not show this potential revenue
stream until the second year of operations.
Meter Reading With 90,000 households within the city, there are multiple times
in which utility meters need to be read. Charging $.10 a reading is a huge
savings to the utility company for wireless readings and could generate as much
as $108,000 per year.
Subscriptions Some residents may opt to pay for a subscription which would
not contain advertisements and would bypass the district internet filter.
Conservatively we estimate 1,000 users at $10 per month for a total revenue
stream of $120,000 per year.
Page 44
FTTH Model OPEX

The Fiber to the Home model varies slightly from the Wireless Model in that there is no
cost accrual for equipment replacement. Because equipment will be indoors the break/fix
ratio is far less. There is also no power consumption cost. The table below denotes the
annual operating expenses related to a full deployment of a FTTH solution. It is
estimated that the total operating cost before any cost avoidance is equal to $529,292
per year before cost avoidance.
RochesterCityCommunityFTTH
TotalOperatingCosts(CONSERVATIVE)
Jan2018
Dec2018
Description
1GbpsInternetService
CoreEquipMaintenance
FiberMaintenance(Break/Fix)
EndUserSupport
ErateCostAllocation
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2023
Dec2023
5YearTotal
$
3,175,753
$
$
$253,440
$187,200
$60,000
$
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2022
Dec2022
TotalOperatingCosts $529,292 $529,292 $529,292 $529,292 $529,292 $529,292

$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2021
Dec2021
$144,000
$750,000
$1,200,000
$1,050,000
$
31,753
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2020
Dec2020
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
CostAvoidance
LibraryConnectivity
RecCenterConnectivity
PoliceAircards
FireStationConnectivity
$24,000
$125,000
$200,000
$175,000
$5,292
Jan2019
Dec2019
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
$42,240
$31,200
$10,000
$
TotalCostAvoidance $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440 $83,440

TotalOperatingCostafterCostAvoidance $445,852 $445,852 $445,852 $445,852 $445,852 $445,852
$500,640
$
$2,675,113
FTTH Revenue Offset

The revenue streams for the FTTH vary slightly in that there is no cellular offload
potential and because the subscriptions in the first three years will be utilized to offset
the providers capital investment, the provider cannot realize any subscription revenue
until the 40th month of the implementation. However, there is a potential profit of $4.5
million a year for the service provider if they are successful at hitting a 20% subscription
target.
RochesterCityCommunityFTTH
Revenue
Jan2018
Dec2018
Description
Advertising
CellularOffload
DataAnalytics(AllbutStudents)
MeterReading(RG&EandWater)
Subscriptions(NoFilter&NoAds)
$120,000
$
$60,000
$108,000
$
Jan2021
Dec2021
$120,000
$
$60,000
$108,000
$4,690,197
Jan2022
Dec2022
$120,000
$
$60,000
$108,000
$6,253,596
Jan2023
Dec2023
5YearTotal
$660,000
$
$300,000
$648,000
$17,197,389
TotalPotentialRevenue $168,000 $288,000 $288,000 $4,978,197 $6,541,596 $6,541,596
$18,805,389
$120,000
$
$60,000
$108,000
$
Jan2020
Dec2020
$120,000
$
$60,000
$108,000
$6,253,596
TotalRevenueminusCosts
$60,000
$
$
$108,000
$
Jan2019
Dec2019
$ (277,852) $ (157,852) $ (157,852) $ 4,532,345 $ 6,095,744 $6,095,744
$16,130,276
Page 45
11. 11. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the documented, overwhelmingly compelling need for a Community
Broadband network and the interviews with public and private stakeholders, a pragmatic
review of the existing telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Rochester and the
available funding sources the following approach is recommended:
1. Whereas there is an impending and critical need to address student achievement,
employment opportunities, economic development and issues stemming from
chronic poverty by the RCSD and Rochester City Government it is recommended
that the Community Broadband network not be constructed, operated, maintained or
serviced by either of these two public entities. The experiences of publicly owned
and operated networks has been mostly negative and burdensome to the public
entity and the tax payer. It is not the core business of either the City or the School
District to engage in this type of operation and to do is likely to be costly, inefficient,
non-sustainable and with a high possibility for failure.
2. Issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify public or private partners that
will undertake to build a high-speed, city-wide Broadband network according to all
specifications and drawings. The RFPs would specify that all bids must be for a
turnkey network including final engineering & design, construction, operations,
customer support and network maintenance. Public stakeholders (e.g. RCSD, City
of Rochester, and Monroe/Rochester Library Systems) will commit to be active
partners and will give contribute/invest network assets, rights of way, easements and
access to public funding. Preference will be given to the bidder that meets all
technical and system performance criteria but also and equally important will be the
degree to which the bidder can identify the required matching dollar requirements in
new capital invested or in existing network contributed to support the construction,
operation, maintenance and sustainability of a Community Broadband network.
3. Respondents to the RFP will be asked to identify models for the monetization of the
network to support ongoing sustainability and include but not be limited to;
a) Mobile backhaul. Charging national cell phone carriers to off load traffic on
the Community Broadband network.
b) Advertising. Charging local or national advertisers for a presence on the
Community Broadband network
c) Location Based Services. Retailers use Wi-Fi networks to interact with
customers by using location based services (LBS) with a robust Wi-Fi
network, a retailer knows not only where the customer is, but can discover
who they are. By acting on captured data such as age, gender, email, and
frequency of visits, a retailer can increase sales and customer satisfaction
d) Paid Subscriptions. Charging users for an enhanced network experience
(e.g. higher speeds, symmetrical speeds, special content, etc.)
e) Big Data Analytics. Reselling appropriate data gleaned from the network to
third parties.
4. To the greatest extent possible encourage all stakeholders to support/sign the
Coalition for Upstate Regional Broadband (CURB) Memorandum of Agreement in
support of securing funding from the New NY Broadband Program Phase 1 funding
Page 46
round. To date a combination of Mayors Offices, School Districts, Library Systems,

Housing Authorities and other Community Based Organizations from the Cities of
Albany, Buffalo, Rensselaer and Rochester have joined CURB.
Page 47

Rochester Fiber Internet Feasibility Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rochester Fiber Internet Feasibility Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Millennium Strategies

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Rochester City School District

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

February 19, 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i

5. Different Models .................................................................................................. 11

7. Design Diagrams ................................................................................................. 36

10. Sustainability and Operations.......................................................................... 41

11. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 46

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Universal Service Administrative Companys E-Rate Program; The E-Rate

New York States New NY Broadband Program; Governor Cuomo created

Finger Lakes Regional Economic Development Councils (FLREDC)

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

NYS Broadband Mapping Project

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

of which the following was listed as the first priority:

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Rochester City School District

Rochester Public Library System

Monroe County Library System

NYS Broadband Program Office

Private Sector Stakeholders:

Finger Lakes Technology Group

LightTower (acquired FiberTech)

Time Warner Cable

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

City Police and Fire Stations

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

backhaul for the community network.

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Pew Smartphones Report April 2015.

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Fiber to the Home

Fiber fed Wireless

TV White Space Wireless

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

power any equipment on the poles. However, there

Active Star: This type of architecture places a node

Passive Star: This architecture is also know as a Passive Optical Network

exact costs for the

know that the

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

separate backhaul to a central office. The $55,235,152 Cost to Pass could be

Millennium Strategies 2016

Community Broadband Feasibility Study

Millennium Strategies 2016