1 / 36

Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum

Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum. Presentation to the UTFAB Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Scott Baily, Associate Director for Networking, Scott.Baily@Colostate.edu , 491-7655. Outline. Overview of this proposal History of ITFS services ITFS spectrum – the “gold” standard

ruana
Download Presentation

Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wireless Access Services in the ITFS Spectrum Presentation to the UTFAB Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Scott Baily, Associate Director for Networking, Scott.Baily@Colostate.edu, 491-7655

  2. 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 ITFS Proposal

  3. Overview of this Proposal

  4. 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, … ITFS Proposal

  5. 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 ITFS Proposal

  6. 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 ITFS Proposal

  7. History of ITFS Services

  8. 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) ITFS Proposal

  9. 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 ITFS Proposal

  10. 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 ITFS Proposal

  11. ITFS Characteristics Overall Throughput Penetration Carrying Capacity Frequency, Ghz ITFS ITFS Proposal

  12. Project Description

  13. N 1 mi. 2 mi. ITFS Proposal

  14. Architecture • Head end • Install a single sector (360o) 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 ITFS Proposal

  15. 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 ITFS Proposal

  16. 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 ITFS Proposal

  17. Business Model

  18. 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 ITFS Proposal

  19. 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 = 10-12 works fine • We think C for ITFS will be between 2 and 4 ITFS Proposal

  20. 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 ITFS Proposal

  21. 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 ITFS Proposal

  22. 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 ITFS Proposal

  23. NextNet Simple Payback, Yrs. ITFS Proposal

  24. 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 (120o, 90o, or 60o) and/or installation of additional system and antenna ITFS Proposal

  25. Other Solutions

  26. 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 ITFS Proposal

  27. Funding Request

  28. The “Split” of Costs • Modem pool $160k (80%) • UTF $40k (20%) • Total $200k ITFS Proposal

  29. 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 ITFS Proposal

  30. ITFS Proposal

  31. Analysis

  32. 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 ITFS Proposal

  33. 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 ITFS Proposal

  34. Summary

  35. UTFAB Funding Criteria ITFS Proposal

  36. Discussion and questions Are most welcome ITFS Proposal

More Related