Strategic Analysis of Community Broadband Offering for Pelican Bay
Transcription
Strategic Analysis of Community Broadband Offering for Pelican Bay
Strategic Analysis of Community Broadband Offering for Pelican Bay, Florida Strategic Business Plan for Community Based Broadband Pelican Bay Foundation Prepared by: 5524 North County Line Road Auburn, Indiana 46706 Phone 260.627.8888 Fax 260.627.8102 www.spectrumeng.com Authorized Signature Acknowledgements The following individuals and organizations contributed greatly to the updating and revising of this document with materials, pricing and elements critical to the analysis conducted as of June 2012. The Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. Collier County Adtran Aurora Networks Baller Herbst Law Group Calix Corning Cisco - Scientific Atlanta Render Vanderslice Associates TE Connectivity This cost/benefit analysis uses many assumptions derived from a variety of sources. The analysis has two (2) purposes; first is to present a plausible outcome of the proposed infrastructure project, second, is to provide a guide if Pelican Bay were to pursue such interests. Spectrum Engineering Corporation does not warrant the analysis, the assumptions, or the success of the communications offerings. This cost/benefit analysis is proprietary and is for the exclusive use of Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. and Spectrum Engineering Corporation. Release to any other party without the expressed consent of both of these parties is prohibited. Plans fail for the lack of counsel but succeed with many advisors. - King Solomon Community Fiber Optic Network -A- Strategic Analysis [Acknowledgements] Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 Background and Perspective ____________________________________________________ 5 Objective ___________________________________________________________________ 6 Purpose and Scope of the Study _________________________________________________ 6 Plausible Strategies ___________________________________________________________ 7 Incumbent’s Existing Networks _________________________________________________ 10 Pelican Bay’s Fiber Optic Network ______________________________________________ 11 What Other Communities in SWFL Are Doing _____________________________________ 13 Potential Providers __________________________________________________________ 14 Business Model & Financial Analysis .............................................................................. 18 Basis of Business Model and Costs ______________________________________________ 18 Mission Statement __________________________________________________________ 18 Business Plan Metrics ....................................................................................................... 19 Technology Assumptions _____________________________________________________ 19 Business Model Assumptions __________________________________________________ 19 Cash Flow Elements .............................................................................................................. 20 Sensitivity Analysis __________________________________________________________ 28 How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? ................................................................................... 29 What Technologies Should Be Considered? Why FTTP?................................................. 32 Wireless ___________________________________________________________________ 33 Satellite ___________________________________________________________________ 35 Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) ___________________________________________________ 35 Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) and Cable Modems ______________________________________ 36 Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) ____________________________ 37 Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) __________________________________________________ 38 2 Strategic Business Plan Technology Determinants ................................................................................................. 40 Why Fiber to the Premise? Won’t Wireless Obsolete Everything Else? _________________ 40 Market Analysis ................................................................................................................ 41 Market Demand Environment _________________________________________________ 41 Market Drivers .................................................................................................................. 43 Pelican Bay Demographics ____________________________________________________ 43 Market Demand ____________________________________________________________ 45 What are the Risks? __________________________________________________________ 47 Legal and Regulatory _________________________________________________________ 53 Large Incumbent Service Providers ______________________________________________ 54 Organizational Structure & Recommendations ____________________________________ 55 3 Strategic Business Plan Appendix 1 – 2012 Community Survey Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary Site Survey Access Electronics Estimate Core Switch / Router Estimate Core Servers Estimate Head End Building Estimate Mainline Fiber Construction Estimate Wholesale Internet Estimate Transport Electronics Estimate Monthly Cash Flow – Loan Model Annual Cash Flow – Loan Model Amortization Schedule Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Loan Model Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash Monthly Cash Flow – Cash Model Annual Cash Flow – Cash Model Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Cash Model Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 7 – Project Schedule 4 Strategic Business Plan Introduction “Broadband provides Americans with high-speed Internet access connections that improve the Nation’s economic productivity and offer lifeenhancing applications, such as distance learning, remote medical diagnostics, and the ability to work from the home more effectively.”1 - President George W. Bush, April 26, 2004 Background and Perspective Today, communities such as Pelican Bay are competing in a global marketplace. To communicate within and outside of the community requires a level of ever-expanding diverse and reliable information services, with the core being connectivity to the Internet. Simple access is no longer sufficient; speed and expandability, driven by new demanding applications, are driving the pursuit of broadband throughout cities and towns. Bill Gates commented, “The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.” No community understands this better than Pelican Bay; the decision to consider making the necessary investment and offer such services came only after local incumbent providers refused to offer any viable solutions. Amenities such as walking trails, parks, beaches, club houses, restaurants, high speed Internet, pools, etc. contribute to the quality of live, marketability, and intrinsic value of properties. Conversely, aged or poorly maintained and expensive facilities breed frustration within the customer. Poor customer service also erodes value. As our young people age, the demand for Internet broadband will become a significant driver in the decision making process of many goods and services. If communities cannot deliver viable broadband access to its residents, they will be passed over for more modern alternatives. They will look for communities which would allow them opportunities to telecommute and provide access to online training, educational resources, medical support and research, and an enhanced quality of life. Reliance for providing such access and means to the Internet, as well as related informational services, has fallen on the incumbent providers. However, with all the benefits offered by today’s wired technologies, the first question is why they have not elected to put forth the investment in technology upgrades? Put simply, the size of the market is an important component of these conglomerates’ profit/risk models. Unfortunately, the large incumbent investment model does not favor small scale communities such as Pelican Bay. Such is where Pelican Bay sits today; served by relatively low bandwidth via shared DSL and cable modem service, complemented by wireless (via satellite) coverage. These duopolistic providers, which are among the largest in the U.S. will have little reason to invest unless realized loss of market share, or at least the very real threat of such. 1 Report presented by President George W. Bush on April 26, 2004, as summarized in “A New Generation of American Innovation”, published by the White House, pg. 11. 5 Strategic Business Plan Objective Whereas: Pelican Bay is a community that desires to provide world-class services to its members – both residential and commercial. Whereas: The communications needs of those members (Internet, voice and video), as measured by bandwidth required to support their activities, have expanded rapidly in the last five years and are likely to continue to expand at an almost exponential rate. Whereas: The communications networks in the Community are aged and cannot properly support the large files that people regularly exchange, high-definition television, nor the video streaming that is so common today. Whereas: A fiber-optic network would support the growing communications needs of members both through a high quality signal as well as broader bandwidth. Whereas: A network capable of providing high-quality, high-speed Internet to every Pelican Bay building would support the community with an updated image and should lead to increased resale values. Whereas: A network that could carry Internet, voice and video services would also be able to handle services such as home security, water leak detection, telemedicine, etc. Whereas: Pelican Bay has contacted a number of potential providers. The nationally positioned incumbents have been very reluctant to update their networks. Local providers demand a ten-year exclusive contract to commit capital for a complete overbuild. Therefore: Pelican Bay should develop a strategy to incent competition by reducing barriers to entry and control the supply chain in order to improve customer service, quality and breadth of service offerings, and reduce price. Purpose and Scope of the Study The Pelican Bay Foundation created the Ad-Hoc Media Infrastructure Committee in the Spring of 2011 to review Pelican Bay’s current networks and make recommendations for future capabilities. Spectrum Engineering was engaged in April, 2012 with the following assignments, culminating with this report: Identify viable strategies to control the communications services supply chain with a strong preference being given toward a fiber optic based network. Perform a current technological review and assess/recommend the hardware/software requirements necessary to support expanded offerings. Develop a high level, conceptual network design for Pelican Bay. Perform a cursory site-specific analysis to determine ways in which each building would be connected to the network and any particular challenges that might exist. 6 Strategic Business Plan Work with Pelican Bay to evaluate the current legal standing relative to Florida and federal laws. Based on this research, propose operational guidelines for consideration. Evaluate the type and quantity of technical and operational staff and/or what augmentation (through outside service providers) would be likely and necessary. Create business case scenarios relative to the most reasonable set of offerings and deployment sequences. This report serves as an illustration of a likely outcome of a given strategic business plan required to achieve Pelican Bay’s objective. Plausible Strategies This analysis uses many assumptions derived from a variety of sources. The analysis has two (2) purposes; first is to present a plausible outcome of the proposed infrastructure project; second is to provide a guide if Pelican Bay were to pursue such interests. Determine course of action Five possible strategies are presented. Stay with Provider (Status Quo) Choose if Pelican Bay is substantially satisfied with current levels of customer service and price. Services Bid Specification and monitor contract Choose if Pelican Bay is interested in a marginal improvement in price with little effort, and is substantially satisfied with current levels of customer service: it should simply hire an independent expert to negotiate a better contract at time of renewal. Further improvement to price and services can be realized if the incumbent truly believes that Pelican Bay intends to build the system. Own fiber only. Engage service provider to furnish and maintain electronics, content, network management and customer services. Choose if Pelican Bay is 1) interested in good improvement in price, 2) is less concerned about best Internet price and performance, 3) is willing to make significant investment, and 4) desires to substantially improve current levels of customer service: it should build the fiber then outsource all other functions. If a 7 Desire better service/pricing? N Stay w/ Provider (Status Quo) Y Willing to invest to control price/ quality? N Services Bid Spec and monitor contract Y Scalability, price and flexibility critical? N Own Fiber, Electronics and Services by Provider Y Desire complete control? N Own Fiber & Electronics, Services by Provider Recommended 2nd choice because it provides the good return, high control, but more expensive long term, lower performance, and is complicated if providers change when compared to highly recommended. Highly recommended because it provides the greatest return, most control, and most flexibility. Y Own and Operate Not recommended because of higher risk, it remains outside Foundation’s core competencies, and limited economies of scale. Figure 1 – Plausible Strategies Strategic Business Plan change in service providers is needed, the cutover becomes very complex and service affecting. Own fiber and electronics. Engage service provider to furnish, content, network management and customer services. Choose if Pelican Bay is 1) interested in best improvement in price, 2) best Internet performance and access, 3) ability to monitor and hold the service provider accountable 4) is willing to make significant investment, and 5) desires to optimally improve current levels of customer service, user experience and product choice: it should build the fiber and electronics then outsource all other functions including the ongoing maintenance of the electronics to the service provider. If a change in service providers is needed, the cutover is simplified and not service affecting. This model provides the highest potential for return on investment, most scalability, and acceptable risk. The balance of the business plan centers around this option. Own and operate the entire infrastructure. Choose if Pelican Bay wants 1) the advantages listed in the option above, 2) desires complete control, 3) is willing to assume much greater risk, 4) is willing to acquire significant staff, and 5) acquire content. Given the complexity of the system, current knowledge base, and known desires, this option is not recommended. In any case, it is highly recommended that Pelican Bay follow the decision tree depicted in figure 2 on the next page. This process should bear much fruit whether deciding to just negotiate a new contract or build a state of the art fiber optic network. Demonstrating that Pelican Bay is dedicated to improving services for its citizens will create the leverage needed to contain price and improve service quality and breadth of offerings. Please refer to Figure 2 – Proposed Decision Process found on the next page. 8 Strategic Business Plan N Own Fiber, Electronics and Services by Provider Develop prelim design Legal & Reg acceptable? Perform Legal & regulatory review Perform Site Survey / Walkout Measure CPE wiring attenuation and freq. response Y N Residents interested? Perform residential survey Y Quit Exposure limited to $230k N Develop detailed construction cost estimate Cost estimate acceptable? Y Y Existing wiring ok? Document infrastructure suitability N Determine Electronics technology Quit Exposure limited to $530k Add cost to rewire to model Develop bid specifications N Note 1 Complete Detailed Design Solicit informal quotes Develop Service Standard Specifications Proceed with Project Y Y Y Still Interested N Note 1 Project Cost acceptable? Project viable? Refine Business Plan, WBS, Pert/ CPM Schedule, Risks, etc. N Quit Exposure limited to $550k The exercise alone should create leverage and downward pressure on price. A $5/mo. savings will break even in 16-17 months. Note 1 Figure 2 – Proposed Decision Process 9 Strategic Business Plan Incumbent’s Existing Networks Comcast Comcast has a hybrid fiber-coax network that supports the delivery of video, Internet and voice. It was installed 20-30 years ago and much of it was laid underground without the benefit of conduit for protection. As a result, the system is affected by water and has been repeatedly cut/damaged/spliced over the years. This leads to a degradation of signal strength and noise (electrical interference) on the line. The network was initially developed with five (5) distribution nodes. These have been split several times and now number eighteen (18). This means that roughly 350 members share a delivered signal. Comcast’s current standard is seventy-five (75) endpoints per node. Comcast has informed Pelican Bay that the network has fiber to each node that consists of coaxial cable from the nodes to the buildings and onward into owners’ units. The strength of the signal varies considerably across the network. As a result, Comcast’s practice is to install signal boosters (amplifiers), either for whole associations, single buildings or individual units; sometimes for all three locations. While signal strength is improved, unwanted noise or distortion is also added to the system. CenturyLink CenturyLink inherited a copper network that was installed in Pelican Bay generally 20-30 years ago. Pelican Bay understands that the subject network has been upgraded to include fiber to their distribution nodes, with twisted pair copper continuing the buildings. The copper is adequate for today’s needs but is itself the limiting factor for carrying capacity in the future due to signal loss over long distances of copper. CenturyLink offers landline telephone service as well as video and Internet over their copper. Until recently, CenturyLink has told Pelican Bay that they will not install a fiber-to-thebuilding network. As of mid June 2012, their position may be softening. Recently, they informed Pelican Bay that they desire to work with Pelican Bay in whatever capacity it deems appropriate. However, CenturyLink has also expressed reservations about their capacity to bring on a customer base as large as Pelican Bay’s. Century Link declined to serve Pelican Marsh due to the requirement of rapid connectivity to 2,500 owners. 10 Strategic Business Plan Pelican Bay’s Fiber Optic Network Benefits of a community fiber optic network were weighed in perspective of the following specifics: Connectivity and bandwidth requirements continue to increase. o According to the Spring 2011 traffic report from Sandvine, streaming by Netflix now accounts for 30 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic. YouTube accounts for an additional 11 percent. o HDTV needs five times the bandwidth of standard TV. Some televisions are now available that project images in 3D, a service that demands even more bandwidth. o Roughly 40 percent of all Americans have given up their landlines in favor of expanded services through their cell phones and others are switching from traditional landline service to companies providing telephone over the internet Deploying a broadband, multi-user, bi-directional network infrastructure through leased, commercial services can be expensive. Significant long term cost savings are probable for the community. Significant improvement in service quality is probable for the community. Significant improvement in product offerings are probable for the community. The Foundation has a responsibility to support projects that maintain or enhance property values within the community. Fiber Optics Pelican Bay should consider interconnecting to existing carriers and leasing transport access to the lowest cost point of interconnection: Miami. Several fiber routes exist in the area including to external fiber that runs along Route 41 or along Vanderbilt Beach Road. A headend should be constructed within the community. Fiber should be laid in conduit throughout the community with appropriate hand-holes, etc. The network should be passive which means that electronics are installed only at the headend and the terminal end of each fiber and not in the field. This lowers operating cost, simplifies maintenance and reduces unplanned outages. The network should initially provide at least fifty (50) megabytes of service to each member and be capable of expanding to provide one (1) gigabyte of service without replacing the electronics. Performance metrics should be established for the network and software would be installed to track and report system performance. This should be used to hold the service provider accountable. 11 Strategic Business Plan Provided Service Versus Offered Service Internet services should be provided to all members (residential and commercial) at a price that would recoup operating costs. This price would be increased to allow repayment of capital by owners. The price at which the service was delivered is expected to be well below market pricing. Given the probability of attractive bulk TV pricing, a package of basic video services (TV) should be offered to all members. Premium services, including high-definition television, premium channels, video on demand and DVR would also be available from the service provider to be purchased by owners at additional cost as they wished. Telephone services should be offered by the service provider to residential and commercial members to be purchased at additional cost as they wished. Expanded Services The network would be capable of supporting home automation services that might include the remote control of HVAC, water leakage detection, lighting and security, Telemedicine is becoming a sought-after service in communities where residents are trying to “age in place”. Members could be in “face-to-face” contact with their physician through the use of in-home cameras and computers. Daily test results could be provided to the physician over the system. This allows a frail resident, or one recovering from an operation, to be in their home while receiving excellent care. We have begun conversations that could lead to a partnership with Naples Community Hospital for these services. Customer Service and Maintenance Customer service standards should be established to ensure first-class service for members. A preference is seen in a call-center that would be located in the local area with a complement of staff who speak English as their first language. The local customer service office should be backed up by the service provider’s main call center and tech support lines to mitigate wait times or escalate trouble tickets. Performance standards must be established for the network that would include signal strength, noise in the system, queue wait times, time to resolution, etc. Note: There are no customer service or network performance standards in the current contract which makes it impossible to demand the quality experience that is expected at Pelican Bay. Price Providing services to owners through a bulk arrangement should provide for a substantial discount on these services to our members. Typical Internet services have very high margins and the direct provision of this service to our members should give them substantial discounts over pricing that they could receive on their own. Also, as bandwidth requirements increase, the direct provision of 12 Strategic Business Plan Internet services creates even greater future savings. For example, the targeted 50 Mbps of Internet service are currently available from one of the incumbents at nearly $200 a month. Pricing for video and telephone services would be competitive but with smaller savings forecast. Why Pelican Bay? Seeing the needs that a community-based network can satisfy, and knowing the benefits that strong community infrastructure offers, have served as the catalyst to explore expanded opportunities. As the potential owner/operator of a significant optical fiber network, Pelican Bay Foundation is the logical champion of such a project. Pelican Bay is not unique in answering the call to serve their community with this new enterprise. Many others have realized the true advantages that can be gained through a privately owned communication network that is operated with a community-centric approach. At this stage in the study, it may be useful to briefly identify what is the underlying premise when the term “broadband” is referenced. President Bush2 identified the following four critical items as fundamental facts in defining these services and how they are delivered: Broadband is “high-speed Internet access” Broadband is “always on”, allowing a computer to remain connected to the Internet 24 hours a day (separate and not interfering with a voice line) Dial-up service does not constitute broadband Broadband connectivity and service must be capable of supporting the following quality of life services in a “real-time” manner: o Real-time video o Telemedicine o Water leak detection o Security cameras o Interactive web teleconferencing o Distance learning o Audio The question still remaining, though, is what exactly dictates “high-speed Internet access”? That answer along with the how, how much and what if’s are all part of the results presented in this document. What Other Communities in SWFL Are Doing A number of communities in Southwest Florida have been reviewing their options. Many of these signed bulk video agreements with Comcast or Time Warner even before Pelican Bay signed its current agreement. Now their contracts are maturing. 2 Report presented by President George W. Bush on April 26, 2004, as summarized in “A New Generation of American Innovation”, published by the White House, pg. 12. 13 Strategic Business Plan Bridgewater Bay recently announced that they signed with Marco Island Cable (NuVu) to supply services to their roughly 500 members. They expect to go live on 7/1/2012. A recent cursory site visit yielded a neat and orderly construction site. Restoration and workmanship was good. Countryside has recently agreed to work with Marco Island Cable (NuVu) on an Internet and video package for their owners. Marco will build and own the network. They are negotiating a 10-year contract. Falling Waters is close to signing a contract with LiteStream under which LiteStream will build and own a fiber network to all of their homes. The pricing and term of the agreement are unknown, but LiteStream proposed a double play for us at $50 a month under a ten-year contract. Heron’s Glen is served by BroadStar who built out a fiber optic network and delivers a double-play solution for Internet and TV through an exclusive multi-year (likely 10 years) contract. They have a video head-end that delivers a DirectTV solution. Huntington Lakes is served by BroadStar who built out a fiber optic network and delivers double-play services through an exclusive multi-year (likely 10 years) contract. They have a video headend that delivers DirectTV. Pelican Landing is considering a proposal from Marco Island Cable (NuVu) to build out a fiber network that would deliver Internet services until their Comcast contract expires. They have been quoted $22 a month for 22 megabytes of service. Pelican Marsh recently narrowed their potential partners to Comcast and HotWire. We are informed that they are considering a short-term extension with Comcast to allow them to see how the market develops. A decision is pending. The Vineyards has recently agreed to work with Marco Island Cable (NuVu) on a tripleplay solution for their 2500 members. Priced at $71 a month, it will include 20 megs of Internet service, a basic video line-up that is “competitive” with the Comcast line-up as well as VOIP services for all owners. The Vineyards will pay for the construction of the network and will own it. They are up charging $20 a month to their owners – and so the price to the end-users is $91 a month. They are negotiating a 10-year contract. A triple-play solution may make sense at The Vineyards as the majority of their owners live there year-round. Potential Providers There are a number of companies operating in Southwest Florida or who might operate here, that can deliver these services. They have slightly different product packages, although competition is bringing them closer together with their offerings. They have varied success at delivering excellent customer service. Additionally, a network owned by Pelican Bay would attract potential service providers from all over the United States. Pelican Bay should work with the Fiber To The Home Council to post RFQs or RFPs as it seeks quality providers. 14 Strategic Business Plan Big River Telephone Company was founded in 1983 and has its corporate offices in St. Louis, Missouri. The Gartner Group named them the top Customer Relationship Management (CRM) implementation and corporate philosophy for companies under $500M in revenue worldwide in 2005. CIO Decisions named Big River one of the Top 10 Companies in the US regarding customer focus . Big River Telephone started out as a Long Distance reseller and migrated to a CLEC servicing the needs of customers in Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky. Big River Telephone has evolved into one the market leaders for delivering VoiP- Digital Telephone ServiceVideo and Broadband to our customers. Big River provides communication services in all 50 states. Over the past ten years they have partnered with cable companies, ISP's, and municipalities in the delivering of communication services over their networks. This has proven to be a very successful venture for our partners and Big River. They currently have over 1 million homes passed under contract and continue to grow. BroadStar Communications LLC is a privately held company that specializes in video, Internet and telephone services for apartments, condominiums and other multipledwelling communities. Comcast is the largest cable operator, home Internet service provider, and fourth largest home telephone service provider in the United States. They are headquartered in Philadelphia, PA and have 23.5 million television subscribers, 15.9 million broadband Internet subscribers and 7.6 million voice customers (2009 data). The current triple-play package is known as Xfinity. Comcast has significant holdings in several cable networks as well as a majority stake in the media-conglomerate NBC Universal. Comcast has received poor results on customer satisfaction surveys, often ranking lowest in the US. CenturyLink is a global broadband and telecommunications company headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana. The company operates as a local exchange carrier and Internet service provider in U.S. markets and is the third-largest telecommunications company in the United States in terms of lines served, behind AT&T and Verizon Communications. Thus far, CenturyLink has not shown real any interest in being a potential provider. DirecTV is a digital satellite TV and audio service provider with an overall customer base of 20 million subscribers as of 2010. The service is accessed through dish antennae and requires a set-top box. DirecTV has its own network known as “The 101 Network” that can be accessed only by DirecTV subscribers. It holds the rights to several sports packages including NFL Sunday Ticket and NASCAR Hot Pass. DirecTV has recently introduced high-speed Internet services that can be accessed through broadband partnerships (CenturyLink) as well as satellite. Dish Network Corporation is a pay TV service provider of satellite television, audio services and interactive television for about 14 million residential and commercial customers. As its name suggests, Dish Network is accessed through a satellite dish and a receiver. They offer several packages with as many as 250 TV channels to watch depending on which package you choose. Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. is a broadband service provider located in Minnesota. They were created in 1977 as a successor to a not-for-profit education initiative called Luminet. While more than 40 percent of their stock is owned by Winona- 15 Strategic Business Plan area educational institutions, Fastenal, Inc. continues to hold a significant share. Hiawatha Broadband (HBCI) provides voice, video and Internet services across facility based, FTTP, wireless, wireline, and dial-up infrastructure. HBCI is so committed to customer services that they invested in training at Disney in Orlando. HotWire Communications is a privately owned company operating from Miami. They offer a triple-play product and are installed in many hire-rise apartment buildings. We do not know an exact customer count and have not initiated contact based on the significant number of customer issues showing up in various blogs. One community is seeking to break their contract with HotWire. LiteStream Holdings LLC is a privately owned company operating from St. Augustine, Florida offering video, Internet and phone services to 10,300 residential and business customers. We’ve had one meeting with them and have a proposal for a double play of video and Internet for $50 a month with a 10-year contract. There are mixed reviews for quality customer service. Marco Island Cable is a privately owned company operating as a cable and Internet provider for about 18 years from a base on Marco Island. They have about 10,000 subscribers on Marco, including almost all (95%) of the condominium associations as customers. An additional 1,000 customers are in Bonita Springs. Pending contracts would give them another 3,500-plus customers. (Vineyards, Countryside, etc) Some of the management team formerly worked at BroadStar where they installed fiber networks at Huntington Lakes and Heron’s Glen. Marco Cable is known as NuVu when they operate off island. They have approached us with a willingness to modify their normal operating methods in response to our needs. They are offering to build out a network to serve us or to build a network to Pelican Bay’s standards that we would own and they would then operate over it. Lastly, if Pelican Bay builds a network, they are very interested in offering any or all services that we would wish to deliver to our owners. Preferred term would be 5 years if Pelican Bay owned the network to 10 years if Marco Cable owned the network. Mid-Hudson Cable is a privately owned operator headquartered just south of Albany, NY serving about 12,000 subscribers across 10,000 miles of a hybrid fiber/coax network. We have received an initial expression of interest in our project. They say that their production facilities in New York could support the delivery of a triple-play package to us (including IPTV) and their construction subsidiary could build a network for us. This is very early stage but MHC is included as an example of how attractive is the opportunity to deal with this project. Midwest Video Solutions is based in Wisconsin and was formed by three companies with a long history of providing communications services to their customers. They have seven (7) years experience providing IPTV (digital TV Services). Midwest now has twenty (20) service providers receiving signals from either of their two individual headend facilities. Transport of the video signals is not limited to the Upper Midwest. One international site receiving video is the US Air Force in Yokota, Japan. Verizon Communications Inc. is a global broadband and telecommunications company, second largest in the US. Verizon was one of the first major US carriers to offer fiber to the home as they bundled Internet, telephone and television services under their FIOS 16 Strategic Business Plan label. As of July 2010 they had about 3.8 MM FIOS Internet and 3.2 MM FIOS TV customers from the roughly 15 million homes that their network passes. They operate in Florida south to Punta Gorda. Verizon management has determined that they cannot commit corporate energy or capital to expanding their territory until they build out regions where they have already made commitments to do so. This precludes them from being a vendor for Pelican Bay. 17 Strategic Business Plan Business Model & Financial Analysis Basis of Business Model and Costs Several scenarios were analyzed using different FTTP electronics transport architectures. Each of the architectures, including active Ethernet, hybrid active passive Ethernet, BPON, Gigabit EPON, and the soon to be released GPON were evaluated. Based on the timing of this project’s deployment and the analyzed cost benefit of each competing FTTP delivery method, IEEE Gigabit Ethernet PON (GEPON) or GPON were selected as the lowest overall cost and most flexible options available. The selected business model is based on cost data provided by manufacturers, contractors and other professionals within the FTTP industry. The general parameters in each model scenario assume that Pelican Bay will design to an industry standard 1x16 split and use local convergence point cabinets to insure future scalability and maximize flexibility. Incidentally, this design can be used with GEPON, GPON and dedicated Gigabit Ethernet (for large demand users). This approach can accommodate future expandability as customers demands change. Mission Statement A mission statement must define the business and goals of the organization. A good mission statement will provide direction while guiding strategy formulation. Pelican Bay Foundation should consider the creation of a mission statement for this project. Following is an example of a mission statement to help stimulate thoughtful discussion. “To provide a community fiber optic network, offering affordable converged communication services to the residential and commercial members of Pelican Bay, in order to help the community grow intellectually, collaboratively, competitively and economically, thereby enhancing present and future quality of life.” 18 Strategic Business Plan Business Plan Metrics Technology Assumptions The model assumes that Gigabit Ethernet Passive Optical Network technology is used throughout the community. For multiple dwelling units (MDU), such as high rise and mid rise, devices equipped to provide service for up to 8 individual units will be utilized. Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) media converters will be leveraged to reuse the existing coaxial wiring between the telecom closet and each member unit. Single family homes and quadplexes will use individual, outdoor rated, single family unit optical network terminals. In this case, the design will reclaim the coaxial cable for video services beginning at the point of demarcation on the exterior wall of each structure. The model generally assumes that 1,000MB of network bandwidth will be shared by 16 units; each unable to see the other to insure security. The AES encryption, or some future derivative, has been assumed for Internet data while TV will use a different color of light on the optical fiber and have its own standard encryption. For modeling purposes, Society of Cable Television Engineers Standard 55-1 was assumed since it remains the dominate choice. Two separate financial models were created to demonstrate the breadth of financial possibilities. The first (Option One) assumes the use of all cash (Cash) while the second (Option Two) supposes a small upfront cash contribution with the rest of the monies for the project coming from some sort of financing (Loan). The model generates enough capital to reimburse the Pelican Bay Foundation after the term of the loan. Below, please find an explanation of the assumptions used to create the model. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, each assumption applies to both the “cash” and “loan” models. Business Model Assumptions General Timing plays an important role in modeling the cash flows. The engineering is assumed to take place in the Fall/Winter of 2012/2013 in order to refine the cost model and provide firm numbers for use in the decision making process. Firm quotes for the 2014 construction season would be received in Q3 2013 with a Q1 2014 construction start date. Construction costs used in the model will be specifically addressed. The preparation work for financing (if needed) would take place in early Q1 2014 with final issuance taking place in April 2014. Construction should start in late January 2014 on the mainline; that is to say the fiber optic cable and devices located outside. 19 Strategic Business Plan The model further assumes that a sample of 200 members would be cut over to the new system as a pilot project in Q4 of 2014. The pilot is required, not because of the technology, but moreover to insure that all of the installation techniques are standardized and that the back office integration between the technology and the chosen service provider is vetted. This involves regression testing of every element including bill presentation, invoicing of upgrade services, accounting system integration, customer service, customer history, work order management, etc. Inflation of 3.2% is assumed. All technical support, customer service and system maintenance shall be the responsibility of the service provider(s). Following, please find a description of each line item allocation of the cash flows, and corresponding method of calculation. Cash Flow Elements Operational Receipts Member Services Fee One potential provider has made an offer of 70 channels of TV including many of the most popular stations, some local broadcast HD and some popular music channels. This bulk offering is superior to Comcast’s existing product and is included in the model as a direct pass thru at $22.50 over the new and improved infrastructure; otherwise it would simply have inflated both revenue and expense. This discounted pricing is only available to Pelican Bay if it builds out its own fiber optic network. The Cash model requires a $10 monthly fee to all owners to recover outsourced customer service and system maintenance, $2.23 for wholesale Internet access, and $1.50 for operational expenses and $6.68 for reserve funding. The resulting $21.00 monthly payment is considered the member services fee in the “Cash” model. The “Loan” model adds an $13.41 monthly debt service component to the “Cash” model. The resulting $34.00 monthly payment is considered the member services fee in the “Loan” model. The member service fee is held level for the first two years, then increases at 6% every other year. This figure was chosen to keep pace with inflation while balancing the need to increase rates with the most tolerable frequency and step increase for the members. The Foundation can choose to use anything from zero to $8.1 MM of their own funds for the project, balancing the cash requirement with some form of borrowing. The benefits of Option Two revert back to those of Option One once the funding has been repaid. 20 Strategic Business Plan Operational Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Pelican Bay should consider designating one current employee or hiring one person on a part time basis (10-12 hours per week) to: Review and enforce terms and conditions of the vendor contracts Act as liaison between the Foundation and providers on any elevated issues Report periodically to the board The model assumes $1,000 per month of salary expense. Again, this role could be an enhancement of the duties performed by a current employee. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Training & Travel A training and travel budget was established at $12,000 covering 12 months. These monies could be used for attending conferences such as the Broadband Communities and Fiber to the Home national conventions or quarterly meetings where Pelican Bay staff or Committee members can network with other properties and communities experiencing similar issues. These expenses are reasonable considering ownership of a $8 MM network which transports more than $8 MM in services annually, and the ever evolving nature of the services offered. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Overtime No overtime is anticipated. Overhead and Benefits The model assumes overhead and benefits at 42% of salary. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Other Benefits No other benefits are anticipated. Legal and Attorney Fees No ongoing legal and attorney fees are anticipated. Maintenance and Customer Support Pelican Bay desires to outsource all technical support, customer service, and system maintenance to a service provider capable of providing television service and supporting Internet and data services. One interested provider submitted a budgetary figure of $10 per member per month. This budgetary fee was based on the following staff composition and includes but is not limited to all human capital, and overhead and profits. They would handle all call center customer service requests and on-site technical services, as well as all required scheduled maintenance necessary to support the network and the members. This dedicated staff would be backed-up by the successful provider’s personnel in similar roles. The full time, dedicated staff composition includes: 1 Networking Professional to maintain the physical electronics, switch, route and server as well as logical network issues. 21 Strategic Business Plan 7 customer service representatives to resolve issues, as well as to assist and educate the members. 7 Field Technicians / Installers to install, troubleshoot and maintain the mainline corresponding electronics. This cost is held constant through 2016 as agreed to by a local service provider. Inflation begins in January 2017 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. A followup letter confirms the $10 management fee as a firm price. Rentals and Leases No rental and lease expense is anticipated. Transportation Reimbursement No other transportation reimbursement is anticipated beyond that of the training and travel. Other Contractual Services No other contractual services are anticipated. Marketing It is anticipated that communication with members regarding bulk services will be included by the Pelican Bay Foundation in its normal marketing efforts, i.e., the Pelican Bay Post, Daily Pelican Bay, email blasts, Town Hall meetings, etc. Marketing expenses for additional services are the responsibility of the service provider. Pelican Bay may elect to assist the service provider by supplying new members with a welcome packet provided by the service provider at their own expense. No cost for marketing is included in the model. ISP Network Maintenance No additional ISP network maintenance expenses are anticipated beyond those provided by the service provider. These costs are embedded in the $10 per member monthly management fee. Contractual/Data Content Fee The monthly cost for direct Internet access is derived from several industry standard cost components including transport, collocation, power, cross connects and direct Internet access. The model assumes that Pelican Bay will lease a fiber circuit capable of transporting up to 10GB of Ethernet south to a Network Access Point such as Terremark’s NAP of the Americas. Terremark is owned by Verizon. Once inside the NAP, Pelican Bay will have the opportunity to select between several Tier 1, 2 and 3 service providers. The model further assumes that Pelican Bay will select Level 3 Networks because of their quality service offering and strategic alliance with Netflix. The video over Internet experience is superior. As a low cost backup provider, the model assumes that Pelican Bay will also contract with Hurricane Electric. Outsourcing to more than one provider drastically reduces the likelihood of a system wide outage for either a carrier or port failure. This model provides for 2GB of internet access combined and coincidently shared between 6500 members. 22 Strategic Business Plan Given the intermittent nature of most existing Internet traffic, 2GB should provide enough bandwidth for all members to favorably experience a best effort 50MB service. Future Internet traffic is expected to become more constant as increasing demand for video continues. Firm quotes were received for the Internet and transport based on current street prices. Costs for power, rack space and cross connects were based on known street prices out of Miami’s sister facility in Chicago. Over the last 10 years, the cost of bandwidth has continually declined. The model conservatively assumes the cost will stay the same over the life of the model. Telephone / Communications The model assumes Pelican Bay Foundation will continue to provide phone service access for its employees. Normal customer service calls will go to the outside provider. No other phone expense is anticipated. Utilities It is very likely that the head end will house several pieces of equipment including, but not limited to, erbium doped fiber amplifiers, servers, switches, routers and session border controllers. A small amount of water is also required for proper humidification. The model anticipates $300 in utilities expense. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Fiber Maintenance and Repair In an internal presentation to Verizon board members, executives communicated that recent experience with Fios properties has yielded an 80% reduction in monthly maintenance cost. Given the average cost of $3,200 for a mainline repair, a monthly fiber and maintenance expense of $2,500 monthly, beginning in April 2015, is anticipated. Inflation begins after month 1 and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Electronics Maintenance and Repair A figure of $3,000 per month is allocated to cover the cost of repairing damaged electronic equipment in the field or headend. It is expected that the vendor will perform this work but that it would be in addition to the monthly fees that they charge. Additionally, some of the monies will be used for software support, and periodic testing of the fire suppression system, uninterruptable power supplies, and HVAC systems. Inflation begins after the first month of allocated expense and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Insurance A community having 800 fewer passings but 3x the cable miles exposure is currently paying $1,417 monthly for insurance on the assets. The same figure is in this model. It is recommended that the Foundation seek a more formal quote from its insurance carrier to be sure the costs are in line. Inflation begins after the first month of allocated expense and is calculated at a flat annual rate of 3.2% compounded monthly. Minor Equipment No minor equipment expenses are anticipated. 23 Strategic Business Plan Operating Supplies No operating supply expenses are anticipated. Fuels No fuel expense for vehicles or equipment is anticipated. Capital Receipts Foundation Funding (both models) The model assumes that the Pelican Bay Foundation will fund the legal review, site survey and engineering design costs associated with the project in 2012. The work should begin in Fall of 2012 and be complete by Spring of 2013. The objective is to have an accurate understanding of the construction costs, timeline, and any regulatory and legal hurdles that must be overcome. Foundation funding is anticipated to be $412,800. Furthermore, the “Loan” model assumes that the Foundation funds the first year’s principal and interest to insure proper cash flow. As such, the model anticipates the project repaying the Foundation at the term of the Loan. Another method is to capitalize principal and interest for one year, but this adds unnecessary debt burden to the model which would amount to an increased cost to the members. Option One – All Cash (“Cash”) The model assumes that the Pelican Bay Foundation will fund the project with cash contributions. Option Two – Loan (“Loan”) A simple amortization schedule was constructed based on closing external financing in March/April 2014. The model assumes 6% simple interest compounded annually and a loan term of 10 years. First payment would be due in April 2015. As stated earlier, the first year’s payment would be funded by the Foundation. The model assumes that the project would repay the foundation after the term of the Loan expires. Interest Income The model assumes a nominal 0.1% annual percentage rate compounded monthly on unused funds. The interest income is calculated throughout the life of the loan. Capital Disbursements Head End Although the community center, which is undergoing remodeling, may have approximately 160 square feet available on the ground floor for a dedicated head end room, the model assumes a standalone building measuring 12’Wx20’Lx9’H. In any case, a firm quote was received for the cost of a standalone building. This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. Note that the room should not be smaller than 10’ wide x 16’ long and 9’ high from floor to ceiling. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote. 24 Strategic Business Plan The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over four months beginning in May 2014. Core A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed for Pelican Bay. The costs of the core include switches, routers, firewalls, multiplexing gear needed to transport the Internet from the network access point in Miami to the Pelican Bay headend, virtualized servers, storage attached networks, domain name system, dynamic host protocol server, and other necessary hardware. This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote. The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over two months beginning in August 2014. Optical Networking Materials A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed. One likely manufacturer provided a detailed cost estimate for all electronics necessary to bring the services from the head end to each member. The budgetary quote was received on May 23, 2012. The manufacturer noted that they expect declining costs over the next 2 years due to assembly and technology improvements planned for later this year. In spite of this information, this cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote. The modeled costs are likely 12% higher than actual. The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over ten months beginning in May 2014. It should also be understood that given the very innovative nature of the electronics, the actual final design will likely be different. Much is happening in the marketplace that will greatly benefit Pelican Bay by Spring 2015. Mainline Construction A preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was developed from information available through Google Maps and various GIS data sources. Actual construction costs were compared over three similar projects in 2011/2012 and the most conservative unit prices were used, and then adjusted for the 34108 area code using Reed Construction’s RS Cost Works. Union Wages were used. Reed Construction maintains a comprehensive construction cost database for use throughout the United States. This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. Please refer to Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) for a copy of the quote. The modeled costs are likely 9-13% higher than actual. The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over eleven months beginning in May 2014. 25 Strategic Business Plan Service Drop Construction The methodology used for the mainline construction cost estimate was used for service drop construction. Review of the last three similar projects suggests that typical service drop construction costs approximately $283 per customer if all customers were single family homes on .35 acre lots. Given the MDU density of Pelican Bay, and the nature of the build, the project estimates the cost at a blended rate of $118 per member. This is roughly the equivalent of $283 per single family home and $283 per MDU floor. This cost must be more fully vetted through the results of a detailed site survey and engineering design. This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. The modeled costs are likely 12% higher than actual. The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over five months beginning in November 2014. Customer Premise Install Materials Materials including cable, connectors, and other consumables are estimated at a blended rate of $17 per member. These costs are based on an experienced service operators consumable cost per install reported in May 2012. This cost was inflated at 3.2% per annum for 2 years to arrive at 2014 construction costs. The model assumes expenses are distributed evenly over five months beginning in November 2014. Equipment and Tools No equipment and tools expenses are anticipated. Engineering The model assumes that engineering (site survey and engineering drawings) for the mainline construction is completed in 2012/2013 in order to more fully understand construction costs associated with the project. This cost will not be exceeded. Construction Management and Startup On-site construction inspection and construction management has been included. Construction Management begins in May 2014 and assumes expenses are distributed evenly over eleven months while Startup assistance begins in August 2014 and concludes in July 2015. This will allow for oversight and quality management for the first full quarter of general availability. This cost will not be exceeded. Other Costs Pelican Bay will want to engage a telecom attorney familiar with Comcast, multiple dwelling units, and Florida Law. Pelican Bay is in the process of vetting different lawyers to assist in a thorough review of legal and regulatory issues associated with the project. 26 Strategic Business Plan Value of Plant Property and Equipment (PPE) The value of PPE is the sum of all capital expenditures, less depreciation. The model assumes monthly adjustments to the PPE value. Contribution in Lieu of Taxes The model does not anticipate any costs associated with a contribution in lieu of taxes. Reserve A straight-line reserve value is calculated based on the sum of the capital costs of each major component multiplied by the anticipated useful life of the asset, then divided by the same capital cost. The blended depreciation term equals 14.61 years or 176 months. The same value is applied to the engineering, construction management, startup and legal fees. The switches and routers in the head end will likely require upgrades sometime after 5 years while the FTTP electronics will last 7 to 10 years. These investments would be funded from the monies set aside as reserve funding by the Foundation. This figure continues in perpetuity. It’s conservative to show this expense beginning in less than 10 years. It should be noted that while municipalities often define useful life of electric plant over 30 years, aggressive telephone companies may elect a 15 year useful life schedule for their plant. Most opt for a 20 year schedule. The Foundation may want to consider some form of reserve funding based on the following schedule of recommended useful lives: Headend 25 years Core 5 years Optical Networking Materials 7 years Mainline Construction 20 years Customer Premise Materials Expensed Engineering 14.47 years Construction Management and Startup 14.47 years Legal Costs 14.47 years As a result the blended useful; life is 14.47 years or 174 months. Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) The DSCR is determined by dividing the net operating total by the debt service. A DSCR of 1.25 is considered investment worthy. A DSCR greater than 1.35 is desirable and may yield a lower interest rate should external funding be pursued, thus further reducing the debt burden of the project. The model shows a Debt Service Coverage Ratio of rate beginning at 1.45 and growing to 1.91 over the term of the loan. Conclusion The two models provided are meant to serve as the likely sideboards for funding discussions. It is clear that the business model is sustainable and provides members significant benefit. Based on the size of the investment and the projected annual member savings, the return on investment is just over 8 years for the “loan” model while the “cash” model pays off in 5 years. The “loan” model yields $1.9MM in net operating 27 Strategic Business Plan cash (excluding reserves) after 10 years while the “cash” model yields $1.1MM under the same conditions, a natural contingency in both plans. Sensitivity Analysis In an effort to better understand the business models interdependencies, several key variables were adjusted independently to determine the impact on the model. Only the loan model was tested since it is the most conservative. The resultant model movement is described below for each test. Interest rate variability; + 0.50% o Increases annual debt service by $24,923. o Increases member rate $1 per month. o Reduces aggregate member benefit by $24,923. o Increases payoff date by 2 months. Capital Expense variability; +$250k o Increases loan amount $200k o Increases annual debt service by $27,174. o Increases member rate by $1 per month. o Reduces aggregate member benefit by $27,174. o Increases payoff date by 2 months. Loan term variability; increase to 15 years o Decreases annual debt service by $253k o Increases debt service coverage ratio to beginning at 1.58 and ending at 2.42 o Decreases member rate by $3 per month. o Increases payoff date by 3 years Operating Expense variability; increase by $5,000 per month with inflation o Increases member rate by $0.76 per month. 28 Strategic Business Plan How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? In order to answer this question, several key concepts must be addressed. Questions including “What is the growth rate of bandwidth?” and “How is the bandwidth being used?” are fundamental to the understanding of bandwidth demand. Also, what is adequate for one person may not be enough for another. Much depends on the type and frequency of use. Clearly we know that what is considered enough bandwidth today will become inadequate in the future. The 16 bit computer of 1981 was revolutionary because it had an astounding 640KB of memory. Today, students carry thumb drives having 100,000 times the capacity of this early PC. The Android Smartphone of 2010 had 15 times more computing power than the CRAY 1 super computer of 1980. = 15 x The following Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast provides an excellent understanding of the burgeoning demand for data. Several key indicators suggest data growth will continue to blossom. All usage and traffic results are validated using data shared with Cisco from service providers. 29 Strategic Business Plan One of the forecasts for 2012 includes: - Internet video will surpass 50% of consumer Internet traffic, reaching 61% by the end of 2015. Some of the statistics forecast for 2015 include: - Global IP traffic will increase fourfold over the next 5 years. - The number of devices connected to IP networks will be twice as high as the global population in 2015. - Busy hour traffic will grow more rapidly than average Types Of Devices Preferred For Various Tasks Percent Preferring At Home traffic. - Video-on-demand traffic will triple From Pelican Bay's perspective a member will likely use the following: - 8MB to 20MB for Web surfing - 2 MB for video conferencing - 20 MB to download and Building Fiber-to-the-Home CommunitiesTogether 30 Strategic Business Plan - view a high definition movie 1 MB for Internet based phone In total, 43 MB should provide adequate service for the next few years. The business model plans for 50 MB download and 50 MB upload (synchronous) speed per member. Pelican Bay is planning to install hardware that would allow for a twentyfold increase to members without significant upgrade costs. For a more comprehensive answer to this question, please refer to Appendix 1. 31 Strategic Business Plan What Technologies Should Be Considered? Why FTTP? When determining the optimal set of technologies for broadband deployment, one must factor in a number of primary considerations. First on the list is the ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future. Regardless of the technology selected, the objective to connect and communicate in Pelican Bay must offer a solution (or combination of solutions) that will achieve the economic development goals while improving the quality of life among its residents. The investment in new infrastructure must meet the determined measures, based on reasonable load growth progressions, to avoid costly premature replacements and/or customer service/reliability problems. Undersized, inadequate or poor quality (including construction) facilities will not meet Pelican Bay’s stringent measures. The premises network being built must have the flexibility to provide for current network needs while having the capability to facilitate the upgrades and extensions that may be required in the future without re-cabling. The greater-bandwidth reach capability of optical fiber translates into a greater distance capability for any given data rate. Network reliability and security is systems. Network security must information are transferred over necessary to offer this level of available per customer. of utmost importance in modern telecommunication be guaranteed, as increasing levels of sensitive the Internet. FTTP provides for the applications security without impacting the bandwidth delivery Optimal technology selection for broadband deployment must factor in a number of primary considerations: The ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future. Improve the quality of life among its residents. May involve the use of several technologies Thorough due diligence is prudent to ensure that the business case will support such capital expenditures. According to Jupiter Research, a respected technology research house, “tech savvy” broadband consumers may demand as much as 84 Mb/s3 within the next four years. In its report titled, A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter’s researchers concluded that mainstream users may demand between 57 and 72 Mb/s. Much of this forecasted connectivity requirement is anticipated due to the real-time video applications and related activities. For the obvious advantages, and the ability to differentiate the level and scalability of service, Pelican Bay has determined that FTTP is the preferred choice. However, since much has been written and described as to the pros and cons of the various systems available today, due diligence would dictate that a cursory overview be provided on each of the technologies to consider. The following is a brief overview of these systems, including the advantages and limitations that were evaluated prior to selecting FTTP. 3 A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter Research published findings reported by Internetweek on November 4, 2004, available at www.internetweek.com. 32 Strategic Business Plan The remainder portion of this section focuses specifically on FTTP and the various architectures offered through that delivery choice. Wireless Several forms of wireless technology will be discussed. It should be well understood that wireless poses several technological and business disadvantages to fiber. Fiber is Superior from a Technology Perspective Short of defying the laws of physics, wireless does not have the available broadcast spectrum that is safe for humans and the environment to support bandwidth speeds comparable to fiber optics. Also wireless does not have the noise immunity characteristics of fiber as other wireless transmitting devices can compete for the same wavelengths. Licensed wireless spectrum will not prevent someone from jamming the signal and rendering the network useless until the perpetrator is apprehended. Although wireless algorithms have become much more secure in recent years, they still are not as secure as fiber networks. Finally, environmental conditions such as lightning, rain, tree canopy, and buildings cause significant loss in signal strength. Fiber is immune from harsh environmental conditions. Fiber is itself environmentally friendly. Electronics used to power fiber based networks consume less energy for the same given service area. Fiber is Superior from a Business Perspective A good wireless business model will assume a technology refresh every 3 years for all of the electronic radios in the field. Spectrum’s experience has been that wireless systems are less expensive on first cost. However, taking into account higher expenses associated with more frequent trouble calls, higher cost to power electronics, and a technology refresh every 3 years, wireless models often become more expensive than fiber models when looking beyond 7 years. The detailed wireless discussion below serves to demonstrate genuine consideration of each technology. However every wireless option discussed below can be considered technically inferior to bandwidth and other capabilities of fiber. Wireless has a place in the network. It reigns supreme in the application of mobility. Wireless Fidelity (WiFi) WiFi, short for Wireless Fidelity, uses radio signals to share broadband Internet connections within a few hundred feet. The Alliance, whose 200+ partners include Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Philips, Sony, Texas Instruments, Nokia, and Cisco Systems, estimates there are between 25,000 and 30,000 public Wi-Fi spots worldwide.4 Recent trends towards increased security are hampering WiFi’s interoperability. At present 22% of all WiFi products will not play well with others without the help of a knowledgeable technician. When compared to Fiber, WiFi provides value for mobility at a premium cost with some sacrificing of reliability. It is also important to note that nearly all wireless traffic is backhauled using fiber optic networks. The advantages of portability and broadband data access will make a big play in offices, coffee shops, libraries, and other commercial 4 Wi-Fi Interoperability Problem on Rise, Associated Press, HANOVER, Germany. Posted on Kansas City Star, March 18, 2004. 33 Strategic Business Plan and public establishments. Other shortcomings include transmission limited to a few thousand feet, limited security, and bandwidth limitations that will not afford simultaneous transmission of voice, video and data. Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) WiMAX is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard and affords better operating range than WiFi. WiMAX can operate over a range of 30 miles by line of site and carry as much as 70Mb of data. For no-line of site conditions, radio performance is diminished. The service can be used as a point-to-point or multi-subscriber system and will offer speeds comparable to presently installed cable modem systems. It is important to note that bandwidth availability diminishes quickly after the first few miles, or with harsh environmental conditions such as metal structures. Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) BWA has existed in Europe for more than eight years but had fallen out of favor due to technical issues. Nevertheless three years ago, interest in BWA increased in the U.S. for two reasons. First, the success of WiFi equipment based on the 802.11 standard has renewed faith in wireless as a potentially important broadband technology. Second, a new generation of equipment (referred to as “N-BWA”) that does more, but costs less, is attracting widespread interest. A number of startups and established wireless equipment vendors promote N-BWA, including Airspan, Alvarion, ArrayComm, Axxcelera, Flarion, IPWireless, Navini, Redline and SR Telecom. In some cases, these vendors have powerful support from key technology enablers, including Intel and QUALCOMM.5 N-BWA equipment does not fit an obvious niche yet because providers believe it: Poses a challenge to mainstream fixed broadband services, at least in the medium term Is largely a niche fill-in access technology, primarily suited to regions that DSL cannot reach Is an alternative to third generation wireless (3G) with the cost characteristics of fixed broadband but the convenience and reach of a mobile service; often dubbed fourth generation (4G) Is an alternative to WiFi (802.11) that is better suited to wide-area applications Although BWA can transmit much further than WiFi, security, bandwidth restrictions and (to a lesser degree) cost remain limitations. 5 Tech Update Wired & Wireless, Is Broadband Wireless Access Back from the Dead? By Graham Finnie March 16, 2004. Original Post by Yankee Group, March 2, 2004 34 Strategic Business Plan Broadband Use At Home By Type Speed and performance are winning in the United States. DSL is down versus Docsis3 Cable modem. FTTH continues to increase – constrained by availability. Source: RVA LLC 2012 Broadband Consumer Survey Building Fiber-to-the-Home CommunitiesTogether Satellite Satellite providers such as Dish Network and Direct TV offer a host of video channels and compete directly with the more traditional cable operators. However, unlike standard video services, advanced services like “near video-on-demand” are available. Satellite providers also offer some broadband services, but are often less competitive; generally offering asynchronous communication of 768K in the down direction and 56k in the up direction for about $70 per month. Satellite’s reliability is often plagued with terrestrial problems such as rain, tree canopy growth, solar flares, etc. Additional limitations include lack of security, little upstream bandwidth, reliability, and inability to offer voice services. Despite these negatives, Satellite is most attractive in very rural areas where other improved services are not available due to the cost to build out. Recently, Hughes has introduced a new satellite service capable of delivering speeds of 3Mb down and 200kb up6. The service presently is targeted for very rural parts of the country that have no other options for broadband. Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) DSL gained significant market share in the industry over the past 10 years. Standard DSL is now losing ground to cable modem service. Telephone companies, including the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) and rural telephone companies, are using 6 HughesNet Satellite website. July 7, 2008 35 Strategic Business Plan DSL to extend the life of their aging copper plant and to make up for revenues lost due to customers switching from traditional phone service to cellular. DSL’s maximum throughput is 8.5Mb. Unfortunately, DSL may only be available within 12,000 feet of the phone company’s central office. New for 2008 is VDSL2 (Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2). This technology is something that AT&T plans to invest in heavily as an alternative to FTTP. VDSL2 is an access technology that exploits the existing infrastructure of copper wires that were originally deployed for POTS (plain old telephone service). It can be deployed from central offices, from fiber-fed cabinets located near the customer premises, or within buildings. VDSL2 is based on the ITU G.993.2 standard and is the newest and most advanced standard of DSL broadband wireline communications. Designed to support the wide deployment of Triple Play services such as voice, video, data, high definition television (HDTV) and interactive gaming, VDSL2 enables operators and carriers to gradually, flexibly, and cost efficiently upgrade existing xDSL-infrastructure. ITU-T G.993.2 (VDSL2) is an enhancement to G.993.1 (VDSL) that permits the transmission of asymmetric and symmetric (Full-Duplex) aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbit/s on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30 MHz. VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at 'source' to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1640 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3280 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mile), its performance is equal to ADSL2+. ADSL-like long reach performance is one of the key advantages of VDSL2. LR-VDSL2 enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1-4 Mbit/s (downstream) to subscribers located nearly 3 miles from the central office. Existing neighborhoods wired with poorly maintained and aged copper infrastructure are severely restricted. New neighborhoods built with fiber optic extensions are excluded from DSL service altogether. This non-ubiquitous offering of service has left many potential subscribers frustrated. Those that can subscribe are often enticed by the low cost relative to cable modems. The average throughput on DSL is a dedicated 768kb downstream and 256kB upstream per subscriber. Generally, DSL is more secure than many competing technologies. Nevertheless, DSL is ATM based and inherently cannot offer the same level of security that an IP based system (offering 3DES or AES encryption) can approach. Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) and Cable Modems For cable TV companies, the more traditional manners of construction incorporate coaxial cable with fiber optics; commonly referred to as hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) construction. Mainline coax cable is over lashed with fiber and the existing service drops (coax) are spliced in. Current conditions in most Cable TV networks have HFC plant operating at 870MHz with the capability of being upgraded to 1000MHz (1GHz). 36 Strategic Business Plan Under green field or new-build conditions, there is no cost advantage to use HFC although there may be a slight cost advantage to constructing an HFC systeFTTP. There exists significant advantage for existing cable operators to leverage their current coaxial plant while pushing fiber deeper and deeper into the network, thereby mitigating stranded investment. The traditional HFC system is typically designed in 200-2000 home “pockets”. This means that the cable modem bandwidth must be shared with all subscribers within said “pocket” or node. Based on a cursory review of the existing cable plant, one would expect the node size to be approximately 360 subscribers. In other words, a 24Mb service is actually shared by all 360 subscribers, each having multiple connections. Also, the data service is not synchronous; offering shared 24Mb in the downstream direction but only 3MB shared in the upstream direction. Other limitations include higher operating cost, lower security and limited expandability/flexibility when compared to FTTP. The Internet service is made possible by the deployment of DOCSIS cable modem service. Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) DOCSIS is an international standard developed by CableLabs and equipment manufacturers. DOCSIS defines the communications and operation support interface requirements for a data over cable system. It permits the addition of high-speed data transfer to an existing Cable TV (CATV) system. This technology is employed by many cable television operators to provide Internet access over their existing hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) infrastructure. The first DOCSIS specification (version 1.0) was issued in March of 1997, with revision 1.1 (adding Quality of Service [QoS] capabilities) following in April of 1999. Because of increased demand for symmetric services such as IP telephony, DOCSIS was revised to enhance upstream transmission speeds. In December of 2001, DOCSIS 2.0 was released. Over the past few years, cable companies began to experience loss in market share to competitors having ADSL2+, VDSL, and FTTP systems. In August 2006, Cable Labs released the DOCSIS 3.0 standard in an effort to stem the tide of waning market share. The specification was revised to significantly increase transmissions speeds in both directions and introduce support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). The version is backward compatible; thereby virtually eliminating the fork lifting of existing cable modems. Cross-version compatibility has been maintained across all versions of DOCSIS, with the devices falling back to the highest supported version in common between the cable modem and cable modem termination system (CMTS). 37 Strategic Business Plan DOCSIS Version Downstream Upstream 1.x 42.88 (38) Mbit/s 10.24 (9) Mbit/s 2.0 42.88 (38) Mbit/s 30.72 (27) Mbit/s 3.0 4channel +171.52 (+152) Mbit/s +122.88 (+108) Mbit/s 3.0 8channel +343.04 (+304) Mbit/s +122.88 (+108) Mbit/s It should be noted that in order to provide the multiple bonded channel DOCSIS 3.0 service, a cable operator will likely have to make several upgrades including replacement of the CMTS, removal or relocation base analog channels, and possibly upgrades to the coax plant. Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) Of greatest significance is the idea that whatever transport technology is selected, it must be capable of adapting to the future demands placed on the broadband infrastructure. And, though the electronics hardware will undoubtedly require upgrades, the underlying determinant should be to invest in a transport medium that will not require “fork lifting” anytime over the next three decades. With this being the prime factor, there is really only one viable option to consider: Fiber To The Premises. FTTP offers the greatest scalability, reliability, and security. FTTP’s chief limitation has been initial cost. However, the cost to install and operate such a system is steadily decreasing while capabilities are increasing (“Moore’s Law”). When looking at a comprehensive community wide system, FTTP has the ability to offer the most viable set of services when compared to all other commercially available information infrastructures. A good FTTP system can offer a minimum of 4 phone lines, up to 400 channels of video, and up to 100Mb of Internet Access. Additionally all services can be delivered with at least 99.999% reliability and employ state of the art security and encryption techniques, combined with unparalleled quality of service. Future scalability usually mitigates any marginal cost difference. In its Industry Focus report, Deutsche Bank’s Global Equity Research group summed up its findings on the future of telecommunications infrastructure by stating, “Fiber will be 38 Strategic Business Plan the access medium for the next century.” 7 Among the prime benefits offered by an FTTP deployment, Deutsche Bank found: Longevity - longer life expectancy. Conservative estimates place fiber’s life expectancy at 100 years as compared with 25-30 for copper and coaxial cable. Less active components in the loop. Reduces issues with latency, down time and technology refresh expenses. Scalability - Electronics can be replaced, without impacting the fiber infrastructure or requiring replacement/overbuild once sufficient fiber is installed. Allows flexible and targeted technology refresh to areas and/or customers demanding more bandwidth. Deutsche Bank also evaluated the benefits of taking just FTTC (Fiber to the Curb). They found that this manner of construction would require a significant level of investment in existing legacy copper circuits and that the active electronics within the local loop would increase significantly. All this to provide VDSL service with the potential to reach 40 Mb/s (under optimal conditions), which Deutsche Bank (and others) expect to be insufficient within the next five years. In the 14 years from 1994 to 2008, the Ethernet revolution drove the progressive development of higher bandwidth Ethernet standards from 10 Mb/s to 10 Gb/s. Applications are the driving force behind these demands. With HDTV growing as the most recent entry with the “killer App” (requiring 19 Mbps in its native format), delivery of multiple streams of this content to the subscriber brings with it a whole new set of issues for copper based facilities. Significant capital investment will be required of operators to support “whole house TV” expectations of today’s customer. Despite numerous upgrades to copper cables, fiber bandwidth and reach capability have always remained significantly ahead of copper. Significant advancement in video channel compression (known as MPEG 4) is reducing the practical bandwidth of a high definition channel. This will accommodate HDTV over traditional HFC and copper plant (compressing it down to 11 Mb from 19 Mb), but it comes at a high price. FTTP allows the video service provider to forgo an expensive wholesale upgrade (of all channels to MPEG 4) while not sacrificing any ability to offer full HDTV channel line-ups. To increase speeds per customer, HFC networks will need to deploy more fiber deeper into the network and increase the bandwidth of amplifiers to meet increased demand. Comcast tells us that there are eighteen nodes in Pelican Bay, which indicates that the node size is at roughly 361 subscribers. The actual rate received will differ widely with the volume of vacancies. It is difficult to say how much of the 24Mbps download and 6Mbps upload that is shared by up 361 subscribers will be available at any given time. By comparison, FTTP offers this 5.1 Gpbs capability for allocation exclusively to video delivery. A second optical wavelength can provide up to 2.5 Gbps of Internet, phone, plus a myriad of other IP applications to a group of homes typically between 16 or as many as 64 by current designs. At Pelican Bay, only 16 homes will share the 2.5Gbps connection. 7 FTTP-No Other Way to Entertain, Deutsche Bank Industry Focus Report for the Wire line Industry, produced by Victor Shvets, Nigel Coe, CFA, and Andrew Kieley, CFA, published May 13, 2004. 39 Strategic Business Plan Technology Determinants Why Fiber to the Premise? Won’t Wireless Obsolete Everything Else? It might be tempting to think about a mobile network displacing wire line broadband, but the idea is “a combination of speculation and reality,” said Arun Bhikshesvaran, CTO of Ericsson AB (Nasdaq: ERIC) North America, during an interview with Light Reading. “Mobility is becoming an increasingly important part of our lifestyle. But the convenience of fixed broadband in terms of raw data rates is always going to be an advantage over what you can get with wireless.” Consumer behavior, too, will ensure that both types of broadband access remain important. “There is a different kind of premium associated with high speed access at home versus on the road,” Bhikshesvaran said. “At home you get rich communication and entertainment experiences, whereas mobile is completely different. It is going to be complementary; I don’t think it’ll be one versus the other.” During one panel discussion about making the transition to fiber-to-the-home (FTTP) in the U.S., an audience member asked whether wireless broadband deployments would present a challenge to FTTP. “Looking around the world, it’s quite feasible that a multimegabit service that is reasonably priced could provide an interesting alternative to wire line,” said Heavy Reading chief analyst Graham Finnie. “My view, though, is that it could challenge wire line broadband in general, but not FTTP specifically.” Bhikshesvaran elaborated further on the issue saying that wireless broadband is too limited and can’t run the services necessary to challenge FTTP. “There is a physical limit. You need the spectrum. In order to deliver 100 Mbit/s to 150 Mbit/s, you need 20 MHz, and there are hardly any carriers with a significant amount of that. So FTTP offers compelling advantages.”8 8 Raymond McConville, Light Reading, Will Wireless Broadband Supplant FTTP?, May 14, 2008. 40 Strategic Business Plan Market Analysis Market Demand Environment “The more users there are, the more likely it is people will be able to have interesting new ways to receive doctors’ advices in the home. The more affordable broadband technology is, the more innovative we can be with education. It’s important that we stay on the cutting edge of technological change, and one way to do so is to have a bold plan for broadband.”9 -President George W. Bush, March 2004 The focus has changed from simply “getting connected” to speed, reliability and accessibility. Demand for increased bandwidth capacity, being widely touted as “broadband”, has seen a marked increase across the nation. What is very clear and becoming even clearer is that broadband connectivity has become the mantra for progressive communities across the country. To see the progression of how this has come about, the following statistical summary, compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce in their report, Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet Adoption in the United States10 (released in November 2010), examined the use patterns and identified the challenges that many communities are facing. U.S. Internet connections overall are growing. The number of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction increased by 28% in 2010 to nearly 169 million. Between 2001 and 2009, broadband Internet use among households rose sevenfold, from 9% to 64% of American households utilizing broadband Internet. Over three-fourths (77 percent) of households had a computer – the principal means by which households access the Internet – compared with 62 percent in 2003. In October 2009, according to the Census Current Population Survey data, 63.5 percent (75.8 million) of U.S. households used a high-speed Internet – “broadband” -- service (i.e., technologies that are faster than dial-up, such as DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, and wireless). This represented a 25 percent increase from just two years earlier (50.8 percent in October 2007). In January 2002, 55% of all Americans said they used email and that number grew to 70% in 2011. Even among the oldest Internet users (age 65+), 87% are search engine users. According to a 2007 poll by Harris Interactive, 160 million Americans were using the Internet to find health information – an increase of 37 percent since 2005.[2] Harris Interactive estimates that 84 percent of all online adults have looked for health information online. More than 70 percent of U.S. adults use the Internet for making purchases online and approximately 64 percent use the Internet for social networking. Online 9 Remarks by President George W. Bush at Homeownership Expo – New Mexico, given March 26, 2004, as available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/ 10 Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet Adoption in the United States, U. S. Department of Commerce publication, November 2010. 41 Strategic Business Plan banking has also shot up in popularity over the last ten years and is most common with adults between the ages of 30 to 49. The Internet has transformed our social and economic environment by providing an important platform for innovation, economic growth, and social communication. Residential use of broadband Internet access services has risen dramatically during the past decade, demonstrating that the Internet plays a key role in the everyday lives of many people. The assumption has to be that the larger incumbents, capable of providing the desired level of service, are either comfortable with the existing situation, unable to justify the expense with projected profit goals, or a combination of both. Disappointingly though, there appears to be minimal drive to pursue new telecommunication avenues. Pelican Bay Foundation is the logical champion of such an undertaking. One additional introductory point; there has been a large degree of consideration given toward offering a system to the community that is presently unavailable through outside vendors and that will offer the greatest chance of longevity. A build out of a fiber-to-thepremises (FTTP) network holds the promise that, even with technology changes, the infrastructure will provide long term, cost effective service to Pelican Bay. A leading investment research institute summarized its telecommunication industry findings by stating that any technology investment that is not optical fiber based is insufficient in meeting the projected demands of today and tomorrow.11 11 “FTTP – No Other Way to Entertain”, report funded and produced by Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. dated May 13, 2004, in an industry focus evaluation report to wire line industry investors. 42 Strategic Business Plan Market Drivers Pelican Bay Demographics U.S. Census data from 2012 provides a basis for the demographics of the Pelican Bay, Florida area. A quick overview of the community is as follows: Total housing units in Pelican Bay equal 6,500 (condominiums and single-family homes). o 72.6% of householders are over 65 years of age. o Only 82 children reside within Pelican Bay. Vacant units are 168 or 4.7%. Pelican Bay’s total population is 13,000 residents seasonally. Average household size is 1.76 The median family income is $102,468 compared to the national average of $51,914. Medical Community Perhaps one quality of life area that has progressed more and offers some of the greatest future potential regarding broadband usage is in the area of medical technology. Whether it is a new manner of operation, cutting edge pharmaceutical therapy, remote medical monitoring and health screening for all chronically ill patients or simply updated research sorting, broadband affords great opportunities. CNET News highlighted an example of this life-saving technology in a July report on a routine cardiac surgery that was directed by a doctor in Honolulu on a patient located 3,500 miles away in a small military hospital on the island of Guam. The one caveat; the real-time information, required for success in such a procedure, demanded a continuous and reliable broadband connection capable of providing momentary data and imaging. Dr. Berg, the supervising surgeon, commented that any delay in the transmission and receipt of the real-time data, particularly regarding the pressure inside the heart, would not be acceptable.12 As demand for medical services grows, Pelican Bay residents will likely experience an increasing reliance on reliable, fast and expandable/adaptable Internet connectivity. In addition to providing better inter- and intra-communications, within and between various medical facilities, there is an increasing sense that securing records through systems redundancy and offsite storage will be required. Nothing has highlighted the importance of this more than the recent aftermath from Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of the devastation and displacement, over 1 million citizens had to start over regarding their medical history.13 This lack of electronically available and portable records created an overwhelmingly difficult situation for health care workers attempting to accurately diagnose and prescribe treatments. Additionally, 12 A Life-Saving Technology, provided by CNET News.com as reported by staff writers John Borland and Jim Hu, July 26, 2004. 13 Leavitt: Katrina Demonstrates Need For e-Health Records, comments spoken by Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services as reported by Bob Brewin on September 8, 2005, as available at www.govhealthit.com 43 Strategic Business Plan the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations will likely require Internet connectivity for questions and claims processing. Policies designed to accelerate the use of broadband could save seniors more than $800 billion by reducing health care costs. These benefits are as substantial as what the federal government is likely to spend on homeland security over the next 25 years, and under the right set of policies, could exceed what the U.S. currently spends annually for health care for all its citizens.14 Early stage discussions have occurred with Naples Community Hospital, which would be interested in pursuing possible joint venture activities should a fiber optic network be built within Pelican Bay. Residential Community Extending capacity and broadband accessibility to the entire Pelican Bay community weighs heavily on the side of building a strong infrastructure for the “public good”. Payback is not measured immediately in profit, but in the value of being advantaged by reliable access to Internet-available resources, premium video and economic voice options. Coupled with the ability to share information, whether it is for emergency or other services, Pelican Bay and its residents desire to be served with improved informational services that will grow with new demands and applications. Importance Of Development Amenities FTTH Is Seen As A Prime New Housing Amenity (random broadband users) Building Fiber-to-the-Home CommunitiesTogether 38 Taking telecommunication access and services to the home has a broad range of potential benefits. Despite the lack of what would be considered adequate broadband available from current vendors, indications are good that Pelican Bay’s residential 14 “Great Expectations: Potential Economic Benefits To The Nation From Accelerated Broadband Deployment To Older Americans And Americans With Disabilities,” [http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive Litan_FINAL_120805.pdf] December 2005. 44 Strategic Business Plan population is ready to migrate once a reliable and reasonably priced source becomes available. This access is being driven mainly by home-based users, which are continuing to seek increasing amounts of information from Internet sources. It is the senior portion of the U.S. population that is the fastest growing user group. The percent of seniors using the Internet escalated 47% between 2000 and 2004 according to a report published by Pew Internet & American Life Project15, a widely renown and highly regarded statistical research institute located in Washington, D.C. A comprehensive 2009 survey by AARP found that 78% of adults aged 50-64 and 48% over 65 use the Internet16. In addition to email, seniors are utilizing online resources at an ever-expanding rate. Key among these are health search/research (57%), work (35%), e-shopping (44%), travel reservations (41%), social networking sites (21%) and on-line banking (34%). As both the national and local statistics have shown, use of the Internet is gaining favor in all population segments. We are becoming more dependent on being wired and those who are wired are demanding new applications, driving demand for increased bandwidth and reliability. Market Demand Data/Voice The predominant local telephone provider in Pelican Bay’s service territory is CenturyLink. The network is aging and does not reflect state-of-the-art communications services. Many condominium associations and individual owners have expressed dissatisfaction with this service. Video Comcast is the incumbent video service provider in Pelican Bay for basic TV services operating under a contract that runs into 2015. The underground wiring used by Comcast is 10-30 years old. It is fragile and difficult for them to maintain leading to signal quality problems. Comcast’s reluctance to upgrade its outdated infrastructure is running counter to the bandwidth needs that Pelican Bay owners are creating as they change the way they watch TV and movies (HDTV, 3D, Netflix) and use the Internet. Applications Based Society Market demand will most certainly be driven by consumer pull, given the lack of any interest or initiative by the existing incumbents to offer any meaningful broadband options to date. Once a truly converged infrastructure is deployed, many new uses and services will be discovered. 15 Older Americans and the Internet. Published March 25, 2004 by Susannah Fox, Director of Research, Pew Internet & American Life Project, as available at www.pewinternet.org 16 Internet use Among Midlife and Older Adults: An AARP Bulletin Poll, December 2009. 45 Strategic Business Plan Among the primary drivers today and in the near term, consumers are looking to broadband for the following: 1. Entertainment High Definition Television (HDTV) A choice of thousands of IP digital video channels including “narrow casting” to a very select audience. Video on Demand Television with interactive elements, audience participation, choice of endings. Extreme gaming, multiplayer with full graphics and latency removed Virtual Art Museum Customizable radio play lists Cinematic Television (more than 3 times better than HDTV) Holographic entertainment/lecture centers 2. Work/Telecommuting Home/ Satellite offices equipped with full motion video conferencing High speed virtual private Local Area Network to connect several buildings for same company. Automated site backup and data storage 3. Health/Telemedicine Medicine Remote doctor visits involving transfer of data, and/or video conferencing (for face-to-face interaction with the doctor) Remote chart review/signing High Speed transfer of medical imaging to remote specialist. Monitoring of senior, or chronically ill patients. Three dimensional modeling linked to remote real time manufacture of replacement parts using stereo lithography. Constant or periodic monitoring of senior of infirm patients and chronically ill patients 4. Community/Social Interaction Online voting Community meetings on local issues Video board meetings for non-profit organizations Video arraignment EGovernment Services Realtime access to Geographic Information Systems Data 5. Commerce Much more advanced Internet sites with full motion video TV programs or commercials that tie directly to Internet sites More advanced online shopping with movable video views of merchandise on command, etc. New advertising models – watch an ad, answer a question, and receive credit on a phone bill, etc. 46 Strategic Business Plan Automated applications – leasing some of the home computer space for huge peer-to-peer computing applications (distributive computing power) Automated applications – computers talking to computers gathering information on lowest prices for utilities, food purchases, etc. Video focus groups 6. Security Video monitoring of home, children, or pets when away Video monitoring of schools, businesses, etc. from home Video inspection of home after an alarm goes off Nightly secured back-up of electronic materials 7. Education Video lectures on demand Complex game-oriented learning and simulations Interactive classrooms and virtual classrooms using video chat formats with multiple pictures of students on screen at the same time (or virtual representation of the student) Instant downloading of books Remote parent-teacher video conferences International video pals Downloading of multi-media materials Parental monitoring of children at school 8. Utility Automatic Meter Reading Outage alert and analysis for power restoration. Energy Demand Management Enhanced SCADA services What are the Risks? Pelican Bay faces a variety of risks in the broadband/information services business. Some of the risks are directly manageable by Pelican Bay, while others are not. Timing Since Pelican Bay is not directly competing for market share, timing is less important. The majority of customers will likely enjoy a significant improvement in the quality of the service they receive while reducing cost. Based on available public documents, several other communities in the area are pursuing similar strategies. It will be possible to follow their progress. Given the contract in place with the incumbent provider, Pelican Bay should develop its deployment plan so that the system is fully functional and can begin serving customers immediately after the term of the contract. At expiration, said contract will convert to a month to month basis. Pelican Bay is likely entering the market at a very good time. o Fiber optic costs are up slightly but are expected to remain stable with shorter delivery times in 2014. o Moore’s Law continues to drive down electronics prices. 47 Strategic Business Plan o o o o o o Little regulatory control exists. Financing costs are still relatively low – should they be needed. Local Installation contractors are not overly busy. No need to be concerned about competition since the member services fee will guarantee coverage of the loan and operational expenses. Public interest is extremely high. The Comcast contract automatically increases 5% per annum through the life of the contract; making the value proposition even more compelling over time. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The project cannot be completed until the existing service contract expires. Pelican Bay does not have much control over when the project is undertaken . Given that the timing risk is only moderately likely and has a moderately low negative impact, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “H” (initial risk) and “h” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Market Acceptance Validity of financial and marketing assumptions: o As with any projection, changing assumptions will vary the projected results. o It is recommended that Pelican Bay periodically check the assumptions, update them as required, and adjust product offerings as demanded by the members. Risk Mitigation Strategy: So long as the owners are satisfied with the planned services, risk related to market acceptance is diminimus. All members will be required to take the bulk offering(s). Given that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “I” (initial risk) and “i” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Competition Unforeseen competition has little effect on the acceptance of Pelican Bay's products since the cost recovery method consists of a single member services fee payable quarterly. The quantifiable risk is related to image and perception. Comcast has a reputation for investing large sums of money and resources to publish disinformation to property members about the validity, need and soundness of the property’s project. Pelican Bay can also expect Comcast may offer steeply discounted prices for short periods; then return to standard pricing with little long term improvement in customer service. Clearly communicating the value proposition and managing expectations through construction and service turn-up to your members will be instrumental to the project’s success. Risk Mitigation Strategy: Be sure to clearly communicate the offerings and value to each owner. Because the services are bulked and therefore a requirement, risk related to competition is diminimus. All members will be required to take the bulk offering(s). 48 Strategic Business Plan Given that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “J” (initial risk) and “j” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Early Implementation of Technology There may be risks associated with the early implementation of a relatively new technology prior to it reaching a level of market acceptance and product availability. FTTP has become a proven technology, but continues to see a marked degree of system improvements, leaving open the need to compare and contrast the various vendor solutions to insure longer-term compatibility. Much of this risk can be mitigated by carefully choosing the technology partner based on several factors including but not limited to: profitability, management staff and structure, employee turnover, commitment to R&D, active in developing standards committees, experience with similar projects, and applicable technology. The industry has adopted two different PON delivery methods, each with differing standards. Some manufacturers have products of both standards that cohabitate well. A new, more elegant solution for MDU’s is nearing development. Although the technology will not be generally available until late 2014, the basic premise is generally available in China today. IEEE will bring it into standards committee this summer. It should emerge as a front runner next summer. Cost to deploy FTTP continues to decline. Q2 2012 saw the beginning of almost commodity-like pricing for the Optical Network Terminals (the device at the member’s home). Adequate fiber plant layout will be critical to insure long term usefulness and adaptation with changing electronics. Risk Mitigation Strategy: No negative impact is expected. Pelican Bay’s project timing may in fact improve the existing cost model because of key improvements in service to MDU’s slated for late 2014. Risk related to early implementation is diminimus. Given that the risk is negligible, no additional strategy is required. Please refer to “K” (initial risk) and “k” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Obsolescence FTTP leads the edge in the access market for converged services. Care must be taken to insure that the outside plant is flexible for future applications. Fiber layout architecture is determined mainly by the FTTP electronics (PON vs. Hybrid PON, “Homerun” vs. “Tapped”, etc.) A good design will mitigate most of this risk. The laws of physics and environmental issues will not allow wireless, satellite, or copper cable to supplant fiber optic’s superiority. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The Initial risk is classified as moderately negative impact with a moderate likelihood. At least preliminary engineering design should be completed prior to final decision so installation and that firm quotes may be obtained. The engineer should have a real understanding of the capabilities and scale of each technology as well as an awareness of the manufacturer’s product roadmap and industry’s technology 49 Strategic Business Plan road map. This strategy will mitigate nearly all risk of obsolescence. Please refer to “N” (initial risk) and “n” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Regulatory Issues Federal (FCC primarily) initiatives indicate a “hands off” approach to regulating Internet and other “information services”. Presently, they are favorably supportive of such initiatives at the local, community level and this will likely continue. Pursuit of state-level initiatives by for-profit providers, aimed at blocking or significantly impeding municipal sponsorship of broadband installations, will likely continue as long as incumbents place their efforts in seeking protectionist policies over upgrading outdated plant. Since Pelican Bay is a private homeowner’s association, no regulatory barriers are believed to exist today. Legal Issues It will be important that Pelican Bay Foundation thoroughly understand its rights and responsibilities with regard to constructing a network versus the continued use of existing incumbents. Questions like: o “Must the existing provider be allowed to stay?” o “What is the system structure such that eminent domain cannot be declared?” o “Is a Certificate of Territorial Authority required to own the network if others are hired to operate?” o “Is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier status required?” Pelican Bay can navigate these treacherous waters by engaging quality legal counsel who are experienced with incumbent issues in Florida. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a moderate likelihood with a moderate to low negative impact. Hiring experienced legal counsel to help navigate the legal and regulatory waters during the planning stage will reduce the likelihood significantly. Because the political landscape is always changing in Washington, this risk can never be completely mitigated. Please refer to “G” (initial risk) and “g” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Interest Rates – Should Financing be Considered The current interest rate environment remains at historical lows. The risk of interest rates rising between the planning stages and the final issuance of debt is much higher than the likelihood of them decreasing. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a medium likelihood with a medium negative impact. Little can be done to control this risk. Please refer to “M” (initial risk) and “m” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Failure to Launch Premature commitment - The project could be abandoned at any time for any reason. All costs incurred to that point would be classified as stranded investment. This business plan is a vital tool to understanding the project, performing thoughtful and methodical planning, and tempering an emotional commit prematurely. 50 Strategic Business Plan Loss of critical partner(s) – Care will be taken to vet each potential partner. The selection will be based on qualifications, service quality, product availability, experience and overall value to the members. After selection, a contract will be put in place that holds each party accountable and encourages each to perform admirably. Customer service and network performance standards will be included in any contract. Take-over language may be appropriate with some potential vendors. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a low likelihood with a high negative impact. Experience, planning, preliminary design, and project management are key tenants needed to control this risk. Please refer to “D” (initial risk) and “d” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. Cost Overruns Since construction will not begin until April of 2014, cost increases in labor and materials are likely. The industry in general has been undervalued for several years. Only in Q3 of 2011 did the industry experience protracted delivery delays and marked cost increases in both labor and materials. The business model has taken a conservative approach by using the highest known unit price, adjusted for location. It is important to note that the sample project was subject to Federal jurisdiction and therefore subject to the Davis-Bacon wage law. Labor costs in the model are 9%-15% high in present dollars when compared to competitive local wages. Risk Mitigation Strategy: The initial risk has a medium likelihood with a moderately high negative impact. The best mitigation strategy is to complete preliminary design. Use the design to secure firm quotes, develop detailed project schedules and work breakdown structures needed to control the project’s scope, schedule, and budget. Also a detailed site survey should be conducted to assess the suitability of the existing premise coaxial plant. Planning, as well as project and construction management are pivotal to mitigating cost overruns or delays. Please refer to “A,B,C,E” (initial risk) and “a,b,c,e” (mitigated risk) of Figure 3 – Risk Mitigation Matrix. System Will Not Work By some unfamiliar with the industry, there is a perception that the system is cutting edge and complicated, and that there is a risk that it will not work as envisioned. The risk is not real. The FTTP industry has made great advances over the last 15 years. The reality is that more than 22 million homes are passed in North America alone, with more than 8 million homes subscribing to services delivered over fiber. Verizon has clearly made the most significant investment by any single company to date. The greatest numbers of entities deploying the technology are small Telco and cable operators. Developers were a significant contributor prior to the housing downturn. They are expected to be a significant investor in FTTP as the housing market returns. Risk Mitigation Strategy: Not needed as the launch of these systems is well documented. This risk is relegated to perception only. Applying the aforementioned 51 Strategic Business Plan strategies will insure a successful startup. Additionally, contracts should have performance clauses. The foundation may want to entertain some level of performance bonding. << Lower Likelihood Higher >> Risk Mitigation Matrix B A Mm G N C Hh F E e c a f b g n D Ii,Jj, Kk d << Lower Consequence / Negative Impact Higher >> A B C D E F G H I J K M N Cost estimate of mainline construction exceeded Cost estimate of customer premise wiring exceeded Cost estimate of electronics exceeded Failure to Launch Internet connection delayed/problematic Customer service quality is substandard Legal/Regulatory challenges Timing Market Acceptance Competition Early Implementation Interest Rates Obsolescence Figure 3 ‐ Risk Mitigation Matrix 52 Strategic Business Plan Legal and Regulatory There are some issues that should be reviewed by legal and regulatory experts who are specifically familiar with communications law. Four recommendations have been provided and are included below in alphabetical order: James Baller is president of the Baller Herbst Law Group, a national law firm based in Washington, DC, and Minneapolis, MN. The Firm specializes in communications and related matters, including telecommunications, cable television, high-speed data communications, the Internet, wireless communications, right-of-way management, pole and conduit attachments, barriers to the public-sector entry into communications, bankruptcy, privacy, and antitrust. Baller’s clients include the American Public Power Association, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), regional and state utility associations and municipal leagues, and numerous public and private entities in more than 35 states. He was also the founder and president of the US Broadband Coalition, a large and diverse consortium whose work contributed significantly to the development of America's first national broadband plan. He has also served as a consultant to Google on its Fiber for Communities initiative. Christopher Cinnamon is managing member of Cinnamon Mueller in Chicago. Mr. Cinnamon concentrates his practice in the representation of cable telecommunications companies. He represents clients before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state and local regulatory bodies. Given his extensive knowledge and experience, Cinnamon is frequently asked to speak on topics including local cable franchising and broadcast signal carriage. Cinnamon has authored numerous articles including “Broadcast Signal Carriage and Content Regulation: 2005 Update” published by the Practising Law Institute (PLI), a nonprofit continuing legal education organization. He is also a faculty member of PLI. Thomas Cohen is a partner in Kelly Drye’s Washington, D.C. office. His practice focuses on matters involving communications, including telecommunications, wireless and media, the Internet, privacy and government relations. Mr. Cohen has more than 30 years of experience in the communications and telecommunications industry sector, first as a government policy maker, serving for over a decade as assistant general counsel for legislation at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and as senior counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee. He then was a founder and principal in firms assessing and developing communications and telecommunications properties and advising businesses. At Kelley Drye, Mr. Cohen assists clients with a variety of aspects of communications law, including federal and state administrative and legislative advocacy, business-related legal matters and litigation. Lila A. Jaber is a Practice Leader, Government Affairs at Gunster Law Firm Tallahassee, FL. Ms. Jaber is a former Commissioner and Chairperson of the Florida Public Service Commission and recently chair of Leadership Florida. Ms. Jaber also advises clients on issues before the Florida Attorney General’s Office, the Florida 53 Strategic Business Plan Legislature, and the Office of the Governor. Ms. Jaber is knowledgeable in public affairs, energy, natural gas, water, telecommunications, and broadband policies. Additionally, Matthew J. Feil, of the same firm will team with Ms. Jabber. Mr. Feil is the former General Counsel at FDN Communications and served as Senior Counsel at Southern States Utilities. His experience includes, but is not limited to, negotiating interconnection agreements with communications clients, representing energy clients (such as natural gas and renewable energy concerns) in cost-of-service issues, and negotiating purchase power agreements for renewable energy firms. He has litigated some of the largest cases in PSC history and the largest water and wastewater rate case in Florida history. The scope of legal and regulatory review should, at a minimum, include the following: 1. Comcast contract a. Termination language. Pelican Bay pays for services until February 1, 2015 after which, there is no cost to exit. The exit strategy should be explored in case this is the direction chosen. b. Comcast has the right to remove their network, if they chose to do so, as long as they repair any damage they create in the process. The timing, implications and likelihood of this should be well understood. c. The wiring inside the buildings and inside the units belongs to Pelican Bay and its owners. The demarcation point and scope of use for these premises facilities should be verified. d. Legal should verify that the conduit connecting the Comcast distribution pedestals in many of the associations with the individual buildings is part of the “Premises Facilities” as defined in the contract. e. Verify that the contract can be extended on a month-to-month basis for up to six months. 2. Florida law covering the ability of a HOA/condominium association to bind its members for Internet and telephone services, as they have been able to do for TV. a. Address agreements that Pelican Bay would have condominium associations and homeowners sign to approve a right-of-way across their property for installation of the network. b. Address if the existing provider must be allowed to stay. c. Describe the system structure such that eminent domain cannot be declared. d. Verify if a Certificate of Territorial Authority is required to own the network if others are hired to maintain and operate. e. Verify if a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier status is required under the same conditions. 3. Pelican Bay can navigate these treacherous waters by engaging quality legal counsel who are experienced with incumbent issues Nationally and in Florida. Large Incumbent Service Providers One of the primary reasons for Pelican Bay to consider investing in the fiber infrastructure is that the large incumbent service providers have not been responsive in investing in FTTP technology on behalf of the residents. They have had long standing presence in the community, are very large, and control a significant segment in their 54 Strategic Business Plan respective markets. Unfortunately, past history reveals that large amounts of marketing dollars may be used to discourage residents from embracing alternate methods. Recently, the Vineyards experienced this tactic. A strong communication plan by Pelican Bay will be essential to convey truth and instill confidence to its owners. For a more detailed analysis of the existing incumbents, please refer to Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis. Organizational Structure & Recommendations Pelican Bay desires to own the network as a means of controlling the supply chain and hence the cost and quality. Internet services would be provided to all members. The ongoing management effort would be minimal. It is recommended that Pelican Bay: Construct at least the passive portion of the fiber optic network. Construct the electronics layer of the network. Construct/lease the Internet connection needed to acquire lowest cost, highest performance Internet from the Network Access Point in Miami. Provide for one part time staff to allocate 10 hours per week to contracts and service quality monitoring. Outsource all other matters to a qualified service provider who will provide the following: o Basic TV in bulk bundle o Alternatively, HDTV in bulk bundle o Advanced TV in ala carte o Telephone in ala carte o Dedicated customer service representatives o Dedicated technical staff o Dedicated installers o Monitoring and management of the entire network including fiber o All back office and billing functions o All regulatory reporting functions o All maintenance and repair of the entire network including fiber 55 Strategic Business Plan Appendix 1 – 2012 Community Survey This section intentionally left blank. Pelican Bay intends to perform a community survey to gauge the needs of its residents. The community survey has not been completed and was not available at the time of this report’s publication. Appendix 1 - 2012 Community Survey Appendix 1 - 2012 Community Survey Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Appendix 3 – Financial Model - Loan Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Until recently, both incumbents expressed no interest in exploring alternate service options with Pelican Bay. However, as of mid June 2012, each have softened their previously hard line stances. Both are willing to entertain more flexible options ranging from renegotiated contracts to providing manages services and content across Foundation owned infrastructure. Due diligence will be required when reviewing all potential candidates. Of the incumbents, the largest two include Comcast and Century Link. Both of these conglomerates have had long standing presence in the community, both are very large and control a significant segment in their respective markets. Both are also a primary reason Pelican Bay exploring other infrastructure based options. CenturyLink Since acquiring Embarq in 2009, CenturyLink has had a presence in Southwest Florida.1 Headquartered in Monroe, LA, CenturyLink is an S&P 500 company and is included among the Fortune 500 list of America’s largest corporations.2 The company provides broadband, voice and wireless services to consumers and businesses across the country. It also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLinkTM PrismTM TV and DIRECTV brands and home security services. PrismTM TV is a 100 percent digital TV service providing access to more than 240 local, premium and high-definition channels delivered over CenturyLink’s managed network. CenturyLink is the fourth largest telecommunications company in the United States in terms of lines served, behind AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.3 High speed internet and telephone provider Qwest was acquired by CenturyLink in 2011. The addition of Quest made the new company 1 CenturyTel and EMBARQ Complete Merger – Company Press Release – July 1, 2009 (http://ir.centurytel.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112635&p=irol=newsArticle_Print&ID=1303691&highlight=) 2 CenturyLink website, news.centurylink.com, May 26, 2011 3 Leichtman Research Group, “Research Notes,” (http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/research/notes04_2012.pdf) First Quarter 2012, pg. 6, CenturyLink (#4) with 9,040,000 residential phone lines. 1 Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis owner to 17 million access lines, 5 million broadband customers, and 1.4 million video subscribers across 37 states.4 One of the greatest dissatisfactions present subscribers of CenturyLink express is the poor customer service they experience. The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) gave them a rating of 83 (out of 100) in 1995 to a low in 2006 of 64 to the most recent rating in 2011 of 70.5 Some CenturyLink customers in North Naples went without landline service for ten days after an electrical storm on August 23, 2011 even after daily reports.6 Customer service representatives told customers there was a massive outage and the company was working on it. CenturyLink later admitted their agents gave incorrect information to the Naples customers and promised that the situation would be investigated. Comcast Comcast Corporation is the largest cable operator, home Internet service provider, and third largest home telephone service provider in the United States, providing cable television, broadband Internet, telephone service and home security to both residential and commercial customers in 40 states and the District of Columbia.7 Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, and also has corporate offices in Atlanta, Detroit, Denver, and Manchester, NH.8As of September 30, 2010, Comcast serves a total of 22.9 million cable customers, 16.7 million high-speed Internet customers. At the start of 2012, Comcast supplied 9.34 million residential telephone lines.9 Xfinity is the name for the residential triple play services in Comcast’s largest markets, which include the company’s digital cable, cable internet access, and cable telephone services.10 In addition to residential consumers, Comcast also services businesses as customers, targeting both small (fewer than 20 employees) and mid-sized businesses of 20-500 employees. Over a number of years, Comcast has become majority owner of Spectacor (which includes the NHL Philadelphia Flyers), Comcast SportsNet (in Chicago, Michigan, Philadelphia, Washington DC/Baltimore, New England, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Pacific Northwest and metro Sacramento), as well as E! Entertainment Television, Style 4 Higginbotham, Stacey (2010-04-22). “CenturyTel to Buy Quest for $22.4 Billion” (http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/centurytel-to-buy-qwest-to-become-a-big-bell/). GIGAOM. http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/centurytel-to-buy-qwest-to-become-a-big-bell/. 5 American Customer Satisfaction Index (http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150&Item) 6 “CenturyLink customers experience outage”, WZVN-HD News, (http://www.abc7.com/story/15386706/century-link-customers-experience-mass-outage) 7 Comcast 2008 form 10-K (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/845254023x0xS1193125%2D09%2D33975/1166691/filing. pdf), files.shareholder.com 8 Comcast Corporate Overview (http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/corporateoverview/corporateoverview.html). Comcast.com. 9 Leichtman research Group, “Research Notes,” (http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/research/notes04_2012.pdf) First Quarter 2012, pg. 5. 10 Bray, Hiawatha (February 13, 2010). “Comcast enters rebranding territory” (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/02/13/comcast_enters_rebranding_territory/). The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/02/13/comcast_enters_rebranding_territory/. 2 Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Network, G4, The Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network (formerly the Outdoor life Network, then Versus). In 2006, Comcast started a new sports channel—SportsNet New York—in the greater New York City region, in partnership with the New York Mets and time Warner Cable. Comcast also has a variety network known as Comcast network, available exclusively to Comcast and Cablevision subscribers. The channel shows news, sports, and entertainment and places with an emphasis in Philadelphia and the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. areas, though the channel is also available in New York, Pittsburgh, and Richmond. In August 2004. Comcast started a channel called CET (Comcast Entertainment Television), available only to Colorado Comcast subscribers, and focusing on life in Colorado. it also carries some national hockey league (NHL) and National Basketball Association (NBA) games when Altitude Sports & Entertainment is carrying the NHL or NBA. In January 2006, CET became the primary channel for Colorado’s Emergency Alert System in the Denver Metro Area.11 Further acquisitions included a deal with GE to become NBC Universal’s majority owner (51%)12; a deal to acquire MGM and its affiliate studio, United Artists, to create an additional outlet to carry MGM/UA’s material for cable and Internet distribution; an agreement with Disney and ESON Media networks to add ESPNU to its Digital Classis level of service in time for the start of the 2009 college football season.13 These aggressive and diverse acquisitions may have contributed to a poor Accounting and Governance Rating (AGR). Comcast Corporation is currently in the 29th percentile among all companies in North America, indicating higher accounting and governance risk than 71% of companies.14 Comcast reported first quarter 2012 profit increases of 30% due to an increase in high-speed Internet customers.15 In 2004 and 2007, the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast had the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue service. however, the ACSI indicates that almost half of all cable customers (regardless of company) have registered complaints, and that cable is the only industry to score below 60 in the ACSI.16 Comcast’s customer Service Rating by the ACSI surveys indicate that the company’s customer service has not improved since the surveys began in 2001. Analysis of the surveys states that “Comcast is one of the lowest scoring companies in ACSI. As its customer satisfaction 11 Comcast – Wikipedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast) Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Jun97/ComcasPR.mspx). Microsoft.com (1997-06-09). 13 Comcast adds ESPNU and ESPN360.Com to line up with content on television, on demand and online” (http://www.espnmedizone.com/press_releases/2009_05_may/20090519_COMCASTADDSESPNUANDES PN360.COMTOLINEUPWITHCONTENT.htm). espnmediazone.com, Comcast press release, May 19, 2009. 14 Comcast – Blackboard May 9, 2012 (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/comcast). 15 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/05/comcast-corp-earnings-.html 16 The American Customer Satisfaction Index, First Quarter, 2004 (http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86&Intemid=90) 12 3 Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis eroded by 7% over the past year, revenue increased by 12%.” The ACSI analysis also addresses this contradiction, stating that “Such pricing power usually comes with some level of monopoly protection and most cable companies have little competition at the local level. this also means that a cable company can do well financially even though its customers are not particularly satisfied.”17,18 In 2009 Comcast rebounded on its ACSI rating for television and Internet services, moving ahead of Charter communications and into a tie with Time Warner Cable.19 While Comcast does operate some of its own customer service call centers, it also outsources customer service and some technical support to Convergys inc and until recently Transcom worldwide, both third party call center companies. On October 1, 2008, J.D. Power and Associates published its annual customer satisfaction survey for the nation’s top 10 largest cable and satellite television providers. Comcast scored in the bottom 5 for each region of the United states, including 10th in the East Region.20 One of the largest internet based consumer-review services, Rateitall.com reports the average consumer review of Comcast as 1.7 out of 5 stars, based on a total of 409 review to date (2010).21 Comcast has made efforts to improve customer satisfaction, including the Comcast Cares Digital Team. The Team began when then Customer Service Manager Frank Eliason decided Twitter would be an ideal way to communicate with customers.22 In summary, Comcast has become a very large company. One of the main benefits to their sheer size has been their ability to and focus on the direct acquisition of much of the available content. This enables them to control its single largest expense. Wether that cost is shared with both stockholders and customers remains to be seen. Conversely, Comcast’s size has led to a plethora of communication and customer services problems that they are now working to mitigate. 17 American Customer Satisfaction Index, First Quarter, 2007 (http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=168) 18 American Customer Satisfaction Index, Scores by Company: Comcast Corporation (http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Comcast+Corpo ration&i=Cable+%26+Satellite+TV) 19 Scores By Company – Comcast (http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=comcast&i=Cabl e+%26+Satellite+TV), ACSI, 2009. 20 J.D. Power Releases 2008 residential Television Service Satisfaction Survey (http://news.ecoustics/com/bbs/messages/10381/518826.html). News.ecoustics.com. 21 “Rate It All: Comcast primary rating.” (http://www.rateitall.com/i-25506-comcast.aspx). 2010. http. http://www.rateitall.com/i-25506-comcast.aspx. Retrieved Dcember 15, 2010. Rate it all’s listing for Comcast in its primary Comcast listing. 22 Reisner, Rebecca (January 13, 2009). “comcast’s Twitter Man” (http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090113_373506.htm). Bloomberg Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090113_373506.htm. 4 Appendix 2 – Incumbent Analysis Appendix 3 – Financial Model (Loan) Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary Site Survey Access Electronics Estimate Core Switch / Router Estimate Core Servers Estimate Head End Building Estimate Mainline Fiber Construction Estimate Wholesale Internet Estimate Transport Electronics Estimate Monthly Cash Flow – Loan Model Annual Cash Flow – Loan Model Amortization Schedule Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Loan Model Appendix 3 – Financial Model - Loan Appendix 3 – Financial Model - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Build (Mo.) Depr (yr) in 2014 Dollars 4 25 152,902 75,510 18,176 59,215 2 5 $ 2,490,133 10 7 $ $ 1,157,468 1,332,665 $ $ $ 2,729,657 555,304 555 304 2,174,353 $ $ $ 815,595 206,402 609,194 5 20 $ 119,176 5 0 2 5 Head End $ Cost 231,323 $ Switch Route (includes firewalls, switches and routers) $ Multiplexing gear for transport to Miami NAP $ Servers (includes servers, SANs, VMWare, Solar Winds, TFTP, DNS, D $ Location at Community Center Core Optical Networking Materials GEPON Gear (1G/1G) Shelf SFPs Control Cards GEPON OIM GEPON-4x PIM Power Supply Patch Cords OLT (chassis, line cards, SFPs, PWR, patch cords...) ONT (indoor with 1RF/MoCA) Mainline Construction Materials M t i l Labor Service Drop Construction Materials Labor 11 20 Customer Premise Install Materials Cable, connectors, consumables… Equipment & Tools Other Small Tools & Test Eqpt. $ $ $ Subtotal $ 1 6,538,785 CAPEX Appendix 3 Engineering Engineering (5.7%) (assumes modest permitting) Construction Management & Startup Construction Management (6.3%) Implementation and Startup (3.0%) Total Capital Cost $ 372,800 $ $ $ 608,164 412,000 196,164 $ 7,519,749 $ 40,000 11 12 Other Costs Legal and Admin Total Estimated Cost of the Project $ 7,559,749 Blended Depreciation 14.51 years 174 months 2 CAPEX Appendix 3 Number of Association by name Biltmore Brighton Cap Ferrat Carlysle Chateaumere Royale Claridge Contessa Coronado Dorchester Glenview Grosvenor Heron Marbella Marquesa Montenero Remington Salerno St Kitt Kitts St Laurent St Lucia St Maarten St Marissa St Nicole St Pierre St Raphael St Tropez Stratford Toscana Trieste Windsor L'Ambiance Barrington Barrington Club Bay Colony Shores Breakwater Cambridge Georgetown Jamestown Oakmont Pebble Creek Pelican Bay Woods Pinecrest Pointe II Type High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise Hi h Ri High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise High Rise House Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Location BC BC SW BC SW NW BC NW SW S SW S NW BC NW BC BC SW NW SW SW SW S NW NW S S BC BC BC N NE NE BC N SE SE NE NE NW SE SE N Buildings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 1 66 1 3 35 10 130 1 117 84 1 Doors per Building 76 76 111 76 60 82 77 100 86 152 102 41 124 39 134 75 69 97 108 70 90 97 97 105 164 52 82 65 105 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total # of Floors Doors per Units with doors 76 20 76 20 111 22 76 20 60 15 82 21 77 20 100 20 86 14 152 11 102 17 41 21 124 20 39 13 134 18 75 20 69 17 97 19 108 21 70 15 90 19 97 20 97 20 105 21 164 19 52 13 82 21 65 17 105 18 32 18 1 1 60 1 1 1 66 1 1 1 3 1 35 1 10 1 130 1 1 1 117 1 84 1 1 1 Floor 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 6 14 6 2 6 3 8 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 4 4 4 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Utility ONT-E888RTN Assuming up to 8 ports used per Closets 7 14 7 14 8 16 7 14 5 10 7 14 7 14 7 14 5 12 6 19 6 13 7 7 7 16 4 5 9 18 7 12 6 9 7 14 7 14 5 9 7 12 7 13 7 13 7 14 14 21 5 7 7 11 6 9 9 14 9 9 Aurora ONT Details Total MDU Ports 112 112 128 112 80 112 112 112 96 152 104 56 128 40 144 96 72 112 112 72 96 104 104 112 168 56 88 72 112 72 Strande d Ports Notes ONT-E1321X-RTN 36 Assumes 2 ONTs per closet, each serving up to 8 Uni 36 17 36 20 30 35 12 10 0 2 15 4 1 10 21 3 15 4 2 6 7 7 7 4 4 6 7 7 40 1 60 1 66 1 3 35 10 130 1 117 84 1 Prelim Survey Appendix 3 Number of Association by name Pointe Verde St. Vincents Strand The Village Waterford Avalon Avalon Avalon Barrington Club Breakwater Calais at Pelican Bay Calais at Pelican Bay Cannes Chanteclair Maisonettes Chanteclair Maisonettes Chanteclair Maisonettes Chanteclair Maisonettes C i t R Covington Row Crescent Glencove Hyde Park L'Ambiance L'Ambiance L'Ambiance Laurel Oaks Laurel Oaks Lugano Pointe I Pointe I Pointe II Renaissance San Marino San Marino San Marino San Marino Serendipity Serendipity Serendipity Serendipity Serendipity Serendipity St Lucia's Gardens St Simone Type Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise L Low Ri Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Location NE SW BC SE NE N N N NE N NW NW NW SW SW SW SW NE NE SW SW N N N SE SE SW N N N SW NW NW NW NW S S S S S S SW S Buildings 13 1 12 16 23 10 7 1 22 27 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 8 12 12 1 14 7 3 14 4 1 11 5 11 1 3 3 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 Doors per Building 1 2 1 1 1 8 12 10 4 8 8 10 4 4 8 12 16 4 4 8 8 4 12 16 8 12 12 2 4 4 8 10 12 8 14 6 4 8 3 5 10 8 12 Total # of Floors Doors per Units with doors 13 1 2 1 12 1 16 1 23 1 80 2 84 2 10 2 88 2 216 2 16 2 10 2 16 2 4 2 8 2 12 2 16 2 32 2 48 2 96 2 8 2 56 2 84 2 48 2 112 2 48 2 12 2 22 2 20 2 44 2 8 2 30 2 36 2 8 2 14 2 24 2 8 2 16 2 3 2 5 2 10 2 16 2 36 2 Floor 1 2 1 1 1 4 6 5 2 4 4 5 2 2 4 6 8 2 2 4 4 2 6 8 4 6 4 1 2 2 8 5 6 4 7 3 2 4 2 3 5 4 6 Utility ONT-E888RTN Assuming up to 8 ports used per Closets 10 14 2 22 27 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 8 12 12 1 14 7 6 14 8 2 11 5 11 1 6 6 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 6 4 Aurora ONT Details Total MDU Ports Strande d Ports 80 112 16 176 216 16 16 32 8 8 16 16 64 96 96 8 112 56 48 112 64 16 88 40 88 8 48 48 8 16 32 16 16 8 8 16 16 48 0 28 6 88 0 0 6 16 4 0 4 0 32 48 0 0 56 -28 0 0 16 4 66 20 44 0 18 12 0 2 8 8 0 5 3 6 0 12 Notes ONT-E1321X-RTN 13 2 12 16 23 Prelim Survey Appendix 3 Number of Association by name St Thomas St Thomas St. Vincents Villas Valencia Willow Brook Calais at Pelican Bay Calais at Pelican Bay Chateaumere Crescent Hyde Park Interlachen Interlachen Interlachen Lugano Mansion La Palma Pebble Creek Pebble Creek P bbl C Pebble Creek k Sanctuary Sanctuary Valencia Valencia Bay Villas Bay Villas Beauville Beauville Bridge Way Villas Bridge Way Villas Carlton Place Carlton Place Chanteclair Coco Bay Grand Bay Interlachen Interlachen Isle Verde Isle Verde Las Brisas Las Brisas Sanctuary Sand Pointe St Andrews St Raphael's Villas Type Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Low Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Ri Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Mid Rise Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Location SW SW SW SW SE NW NW SW NE SW SW SW SW SW BC NW NW NW SW SW SW SW S S NE NE S S NW NW SW NW NW SW SW NE NE SE SE SE SE SE NW Buildings 2 1 2 3 14 3 2 4 4 3 2 1 1 4 1 12 3 2 4 1 3 2 24 23 13 10 20 20 12 8 19 33 33 4 4 18 9 10 10 22 21 15 2 Doors per Building 12 8 12 8 8 25 15 20 17 30 18 16 20 15 27 12 28 18 15 12 25 18 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 7 Total # of Floors Doors per Units with doors 24 2 8 2 24 2 24 2 112 2 75 5 30 3 80 5 68 3 90 5 36 4 16 4 20 4 60 3 27 7 144 3 84 5 36 3 60 3 12 3 75 5 36 3 24 1 46 1 26 1 10 1 20 1 40 1 12 1 16 1 19 1 33 1 33 1 8 1 12 1 18 1 18 1 20 1 30 1 22 1 21 1 15 1 14 1 Floor 6 4 6 4 4 5 5 4 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 6 5 4 5 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 7 5 Utility ONT-E888RTN Assuming up to 8 ports used per Closets 4 1 4 3 14 2 12 1 4 2 12 1 12 2 12 1 6 1 2 2 3 1 8 2 4 1 24 1 12 1 6 1 8 1 2 2 12 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 Aurora ONT Details Total MDU Ports 32 8 32 24 112 96 32 96 96 96 48 16 24 64 32 192 96 48 64 16 96 48 Strande d Ports 8 0 8 0 0 21 2 16 28 6 12 0 4 4 5 48 12 12 4 4 21 12 Notes ONT-E1321X-RTN 24 46 26 10 20 40 12 16 19 33 33 8 32 20 18 18 20 80 50 22 21 15 16 2 Prelim Survey Appendix 3 Number of Association by name Tierra Mar Tierra Mar Villa Coronado Villa Coronado Villa La Palma Villa Lantana Villa Lantana Villas atPB West Villas of Pelican Bay Villas of Pelican Bay Vizcaya Total Type Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Villas Location S S NW NW BC NE NE SE SE SE BC Buildings 23 3 3 1 22 18 3 4 6 3 58 1359 Doors per Total # of Floors Doors per Building Units with doors 2 46 1 1 3 1 4 12 1 2 2 1 1 22 1 1 18 1 2 6 1 1 4 1 6 36 1 4 12 1 1 58 1 3415 6441 754 Utility ONT-E888RTN Assuming up to 8 ports used per Floor Closets 2 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 6 4 1 3 1 1 504 Total 816 TOTAL ONTS TOTAL PON PORTS Assuming 8 port PIM TOTAL 8802 PIMS TOTAL T7 CHASSIS 1,952 122 Total 1x16 passives 122 6 Aurora ONT Details Total MDU Ports Strande d Ports 24 12 Notes ONT-E1321X-RTN 46 3 2 22 18 6 4 48 24 12 12 58 1136 6,528 1,223 15 1 Prelim Survey Appendix 3 Access Electronics Quote Sheet: All Sheets Customer: Spectrum Engineering Budgetary Pricing 1 2 1 18 122 4 1 1136 1136 816 1136 816 16 1 122 1 16 16 6528 1 61 Model Number Description Trident7 OLT Components Trident 7 OLT 14 RU Chassis with power/alarm panel and fan assembly. Requires the T7-7218 Platform Management Module (PMM) and Platform Switch Module (PSM) Trident 7 Multi-Gigabit L2/L3 Platform Switch Module (PSM) supporting three 10GE & T7-PSM-02 two 1GE uplink interfaces for T7-7218 chassis (note: 1 or 2 /chassis; SFP transceiver T7-PMM-01 Trident 7 Platform Management Module (1 per T7-7218 chassis) Trident 7 802.3AH EPON Platform Interface Module (PIM) with Eight PON ports (Note: T7-PIM-8802 EPON SFP transceivers sold separately) EPON SFP transceiver, IEEE 802.3, 1000BASE-PX20-D used with the T7-PIM-4802 & T7-PIM-SFP-PX20-D T7-PIM-8802. 1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver, transmitting at 1550 nm, for 80 km of single mode fiber SFP-ZX-RT applications over an operating temperature range of -40 to 65 C. RF Settop Return 1 RU RF Set Top Box (STB) digital Return Headend unit. Utilized with ONTs with embedded support of Motorola STB RF return. Connects to network via 10/100 BASET LMSR-02 port and performs D/A recovering RF STB signal of Motorola Digital Set Top and DOCSIS Set Top Gateway (DSG) supporting up to 6 RF STB channels. Trident7 ONT Components Outdoor EPON ONT module with One 1000BaseT, Three 10/100BaseT, Two POTS ONT-E1321X-RTN-FRU and One RF Port with RF Return, PX20 optics, SC/APC connector, Field Replaceable Unit for the Enhanced NID (ENID) enclosure (sold separately). ENID-CH T7 Enhanced NID (ENID) enclosure Outdoor EPON ONT module with Eight 10/100BASE-T, Eight POTS and Eight RF Ports ONT-E888X-RTN with RF Return, SC/APC connector and installed in outdoor enclosure. Trident7 ONT Battery Backed Power Supply Options PT-CY-CS24U12V 12VDC Power supply and 7.2AHr Battery, 24W, Indoor (CS24U12V) PT-CY-CS50U48V -48VDC Power supply and 20AHr Battery, 50W, Indoor (CS50U48V) Use with ONTVideo Accessories **Estimate Only** Erbuim Doped Fiber Amplifier 8 Port (ea.) Patch Panels & cords (1 lot) Wave Division Multiplexer per port (ea.) CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch **Estimate Only** Chassis with control cards, switch fabric, and power supplies (ea.) Card (Primary) CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch 30M-50M per ch (ea.) Card (Backup) CMTS Docsis 3.0 8ch x 4ch 30M-50M per ch (ea.) MoCA Adapters **Estimate Only** ActionTec MoCA Estimate Only** 2 Pak ActionTec MoCA adapters Trident7 Element Management System Trident7 Element Management System Software Platform supporting up to 3000 T7-EMS-3k Optical Network Terminals. Passives Dual wavelength, 2x16-Way Splitter, Ruggedized with 2 mm pigtail and SC/APC input OP91S32S-EQ-R2-AS connectors. Price $5,250 $5,250 $9,275 $18,550 $3,010 $3,010 $7,000 $126,000 $210 $25,620 $427 $1,708 $7,875 $7,875 $239 $271,504 $36 $40,896 $40 896 $850 $693,600 $52 $147 $59,072 $119,952 $5,500 $3,928 $35 $88,000 $3,928 $4,270 $11,750 $5,600 $3,750 $11,750 $89,600 $60,000 $100 $652,800 $5,000 $5,000 $815 Grand Total 7 Grand Total Quantity Discount $49,715 $2,338,100 Access Electronics Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Cost Estimate Core Switch Route 2 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 16303 16321 10918 10917 16322 41011 41231 41631 41521 60021 60020 41311 41312 10124 10121 10052 Extreme Networks BD 8900 Summit X480-24x Summit X480 Core License Summit X480 DC PSU Summit X480 AC PSU Summit X480 MPLS Feature Pack BD 8810 BD8900-MSM128 BD 8900-10G8X-xl BD 8900-G48X-xl BD 1200W -48V DC PSU BD 700W/1200W AC PSU BD 8800 Core License BD8800 MPLS Feature Pack ER XFP SR XFP LX mini-GBIC 5,273.00 1,756.00 349.00 262.00 2,196.00 3,075.00 10,987.00 10,987.00 8,789.00 2,196.00 1,756.00 4,393.00 4,393.00 3,954.00 877.00 437.00 5,589.38 1,861.36 369.94 277.72 2,327.76 3,259.50 11,646.22 11,646.22 9,316.34 2,327.76 1,861.36 4,656.58 4,656.58 4,191.24 929.62 463.22 Core Material Total 1 83011 1 83521 Ridgeline EMS Ridgeline 3.0 Base-50 Service Advisor FP 24,386.36 2,196.00 7,031.00 2,327.76 7,452.86 EMS Software Total 2 CORE_Install 1 CEC_T&T 11,178.76 3,722.72 0.00 1,110.88 4,655.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,718.48 0.00 Services Installation of Extreme Summit X480 2,295.00 Turn-up and Test of Extreme Summit x480 Core 29,996.00 2,327.76 7,452.86 9 780 62 9,780.62 2,432.70 31,795.76 4,865.40 31,795.76 Core Services Total 36,661.16 Core Material Total Shipping & Handling Services Total $34,166.98 TBD $36,661.16 $70,828.14 8 Core Switch Route Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Cost Estimate Core Switch Route Extreme Networks Maintenance 2 97004-X480-24X EW NBD AHR Summit X480-24X 2 97000-X480COREEW Software and TAC Summit X480CORE ExtremeWorks 4 Hour Advanced Hardware Replacement annual maintenance - 24x7x365 0 97007-8810 TAC, e-Support, 4 hour advanced hardware replacement ExtremeWorks 4 Hour On-Site annual 0 97008-MSM128 maintenance - 24x7x365 TAC, e-Support, 4 Hour Response with Engineer and Parts 0 97000-88XOS ExtremeWorks Software and TAC 1 97003-R-BASE EW Software Subscription-R-Base EW Software Subscription-R-SA 1 97003-R-SA 0 97000-41312 BD8800 MPLS Feature Pack Maintenance Total 9 911.00 294.00 965.66 311.64 1,931.32 623.28 3,400.00 3,400.00 0.00 2,615.00 3,400.00 0.00 1,401.00 929.00 2,984.00 467.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 0.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 0.00 6,800.00 Core Switch Route Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Cost Estimate items/description part no HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server Base 583914-B21 Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670 (2.93GHz, 12M L3 Cache, 95 Watts, DDR3-1333, HT, Turbo 2/2/3/3) HP 12GB PC3-10600R 3x4GB 2Rank Memory Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670 (2.93GHz, 12M L3 Cache, 95 Watts, DDR3-1333, HT, Turbo 2/2/3/3) HP 12GB PC3-10600R 3x4GB 2Rank Memory VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus with 1yr HP P410/ZM SAS Array Controller 587493-L21 ext price 2 $ 19,655.18 587493-B21 500658-12G 571774-B21 Included 507125-B21 HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual Port 10,000 rpm Enterprise Hard Drive 507125-B21 HP Slim 12.7mm SATA DVD Optical Drive (2) Embedded HP NC382i Dual Port Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapters HP NC364T PCI Express Quad Port Gigabit Server Adapter - Low Profile HP SCO8e 6 Gb SAS Host Bus Adapter 2 HP 460W CS HE Power Supplies HP iLO Advanced 1 Server License with 1yr 24x7 Technical Support and Updates 481041-B21 HP Care Pack, Install HP ProLiant DL380 9,827.59 qty 500658-12G HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual Port 10,000 rpm Enterprise Hard Drive Integrated Lights Out 3 (iLO 3) Management HP Standard Limited Warranty - 3 Years Parts and onsite Labor, Next Business Day HP Care Pack, 3 Years, 4 Hours, 24x7, Hardware, ProLiant DL380 unit price Included 435508-B21 614988-B21 503296-2PS 512485-B21 included included U4545E 703.20 2 $ 1,406.40 U4554E 280.00 2 $ 560.00 7,480.00 1 $ 7,480.00 HP StorageWorks P2000 G3 SAS MSA Dual Controller Base SFF Array System AW594A HP StorageWorks P2000 G3 SAS MSA Dual Controller SFF Array System AW594A 6 Gb/sec SAS host interface 2.5 in. (drive) 2U (enclosure) Up to 24 SAS / SATA SFF drives Up to 12TB of storage Expand w/ D2700 2.5-inch disk enclosure or P2000 3.5inch disk enclosure Included Included Included Included Included 10 Core Servers Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Preliminary Cost Estimate items/description part no 512547-B21 HP 146GB 6G SAS 15K rpm SFF (2.5- inch) Dual Port Enterprise 3yr Warranty Hard Drive HP 146GB 6G SAS 15K rpm SFF (2.5- inch) Dual Port Enterprise 3yr Warranty Hard Drive HP External Mini SAS 2m Cable 407339-B21 HP 3 year 4 hour 24x7 MSA2000 G3 UV394E Hardware Support HP Installation Modular Smart Array and U8132E Enclosure Services HP Modular Smart Array SC08e 2-ports 614988-B21 Ext PCIe x8 SAS Host Bus Adapter VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus 1P 1yr 571774-B21 9x5 No Media License UR656E HP 3 year 24x7 VMWare vSphere EPlus 1 Processor License Support 571780-B21 VMware vCenter Standard for vSphere 1yr No Media License UR782E HP 3 year 24x7 VMWare vCenter Standard for vSphere License Support SolarWinds Management Software 1247 ORION NPM SL100 SVR LIC W/ 1YR MNT NON Returnable unit price qty ext price 335.07 10 $ 3,350.70 88.80 2 $ 177.60 1,599.20 1 $ 1,599.20 400.00 1 $ 400.00 152.57 2 $ 305.14 3,087.00 2 $ 6,174.00 1,384.00 4 $ 5,536.00 4,412.12 1 $ 4,412.12 1,978.40 1 $ 1,978.40 2,475.00 1 $ 2,475.00 Total : $ 55,509.74 SubTotal : $55,509.74 * For detailed warranty information, please go to www.hp.com/go/specificwarrantyinfo. Sales taxes added where applicable. Freight is FOB Destination. 11 Core Servers Appendix 3 eServices www.oldcastlecomm.com 27 Amlajack Blvd • Newnan, GA 30265 Phone Fax (678) 371-8315 (317) 569-9909 [email protected] June 25, 2012 Pelican Bay Foundation Budgetary Cost Estimate Quote #: 12-0000 Dear Spectrum Engineering We are pleased to provide you with a proposal for the turnkey deployment of a 12’ X 20’ at your site in Auburn, IN. With over twenty years of experience in providing controlled environment structures, Oldcastle will exceed your expectations and offer you the highest standard of quality, service and professional integrity. We offer the following: Project Scope: Please refer to the attached scope of work. Although our proposal is complete, at this time it does not include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Land purchase cost Building enhancements Racks, electronic equipment and related installation Project contingency Project Schedule: We offer the following milestone schedule Site investigation Permit review and approval Equipment procurement Site preparation Set building and assembly Final connections and punch © 2012 fgh 1 week ??? 12 to 15 weeks 2 weeks 1 week 2 weeks 12 Head End Appendix 3 E Quote 12-0000 Project Pricing: Our price in accordance to the above-mentioned scope and schedule is as follows: Work Item 1. Project Management 2. Real Estate Services 3. Design and Permitting Allowance 4. Site Work 5. On-site Foundations 6. Delivery, Crane and Assembly 7. Precast Structure Freight Use Tax 8. On-site Architectural Enhancements 9. On-site Mechanical and Electrical A. Electrical (exterior): B. Electrical (interior): C. HVAC: E. Plumbing: D. Fire Protection: F. Controls and automation: 10. On-Site Accessories 11. Equipment (60kW Gen & 16kVA UPS) 11. Equipment (UPS & Twistlocks) 12. Electronic Equipment Integration 13. Maintenance 14. Project Contingency TOTAL Value 11,576 15,950 7,000 22,432 9,252 37,297 5,350 2,611 10,828 in above in above 18,886 44,668 30,344 1,000 - Alternates - - - - 217,194 We are confident that we have assembled a team that can deliver the necessary performance criteria and construction activities required to make this a successful project. With our proven track record, Oldcastle will complete this project meeting your needs as related to schedule, quality and function. Thank you for the opportunity and do not hesitate to call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Marc Price Oldcastle Services Enclosures: Scope of Work, Terms and Conditions © 2012 fgh 13 Head End Appendix 3 E Quote 12-0000 SCOPE OF WORK 1. Project Management Project Management: On-Site Supervision: Expenses: Bonds / Insurance: Testing: Safety and Quality Manage the budget, schedule and quality on the shelter project Manage field activities, coordination of trades and quality assurance Travel, temporary utilities, layout, trash removal, final cleaning and project photos Standard certificate naming Owner as additional insured. Not included as part of this proposal Our comprehensive corporate programs will be followed on this project Clarifications: Bond premiums reimburse at cost by Owner Builder Risk insurance by Owner. Design and Permitting by Owner Site security by others Temporary enclosures and access roads by others Delays beyond our control may require additional funds 2. Real Estate Services Identification/Evaluation: Due diligence: Contract negotiation: Representation at closing: Real Estate Commissions: Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 3. Design and Permitting Not included as part of this proposal 4. Site Work Landscaping: Fencing: Gate: Utilities: Compound stone: Asphalt paving: Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Incoming Electrical, Gas, water and sewer to be provided by others if required Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 5. On-site Foundations Grading: Building foundation: Generator pad: Other pads / foundations: Stoops Sidewalks: Compound stone: Drive and parking: Culvert © 2012 fgh Sheet grade immediate perimeter around building and haul off vegetation debris. 2' wide strip of footing, up to 1' above grade and as required below grade for frost. Necessary backfill under building with cap slab. (1) one 10’x15’ slab Not included as part of this proposal (1) one 5’x5’ stoop Not included as part of this proposal Provide 4” of stone cover within 10’ perimeter of building Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 14 Head End Appendix 3 E Quote 12-0000 Exclusions: Import or removal of spoil materials Soil stabilization Dewatering or rock removal Wet or winter weather conditions Demolition of large vegetation or man-made structures Storm drainage via pipes or manholes including foundation drains Termite protection Excessive footing depth, poor soil bearing capacity, elevated buildings, sloping sites or provisions for future expansion Stairs or handicap ramps Satellite or tower foundations Pipe bollards 6. Delivery, Crane and Assembly Freight: Crane: Assembly: Included in section seven Crane and rigging materials to set building Labor and materials to set and tie down shelter Clarifications: Delivery on weekdays during normal daylight working hours Excessive site access is excluded. This may include but not be limited to the following: truck and crane turning radius, roads, crossings, or load bearing surfaces, overhead power lines, overhanging trees, road/lane closures or other obstructions. 7. Precast Structure Not included as part of this proposal – Separate quote from Plant 8. On-site Architectural Enhancements Exterior Interior Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 9. On-site Mechanical and Electrical A. Electrical (exterior): o Exterior ground: o o o o Perimeter loop with copper cable, 10’ copper cladded rods, inspections ports,conduit entry into building with all connection cadwelded to 10’ copper cladded rod connected to the main ground loop. Lightning protection Perimeter copper cable adhered to roof; lightning arrestors adhered to roof every 15 to 20 on center and connected to cable; two aluminum down legs on opposite sides of the building with each down leg cadwelded to 10’ copper cladded rod connected to the main ground loop. Incoming service Not included as part of this proposal Generator work Receive, set and anchor; up to 20 lf of conduits (line voltage, blocker heater and controls) and matching number of conductors for 40KW generator. Power Conditioning Not included as part of this proposal B. Electrical (interior): Included as part of section seven C. Plumbing: Not included as part of this proposal © 2012 fgh 15 Head End Appendix 3 E Quote 12-0000 D. Fire Protection: Not included as part of this proposal E. HVAC: Included as part of section seven F. Controls and automation: Included as part of section seven Exclusions: Grounding of fencing Supplemental (chemical/compound) materials for grounding Metering cabinet, transformer work, transformer pads/poles, right-of-way work, and boring or excavation of drive or street Concrete encasement of any underground conduits Interior grounding system Wet sprinkler system Air Sampling system Active alarm or monitoring system 10. On-Site Accessories Satellite work: Tower work: Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 11. Equipment Generator: Generator extras: ATS: Power Conditioning: Furnish Katolight 40 KW three phase, (120/240) diesel generator; main line circuit breaker; 24 hour belly fuel tank; Communications package for remote monitoring; analog / digital control panel; start-up and training Not included as part of this proposal Furnish 200A, ATS, plant to install Not included as part of this proposal Exclusions: Sound attenuation for generator Maintenance by-pass for ATS or UPS 12. Electronic Equipment Integration Cable ladder: Racks: o Racks o Rack accessories o Power strips Equipment integration: Interior Ground Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal Not included as part of this proposal 13. Maintenance Maintenance / Upgrades: Not included as part of this proposal 14. Project Contingency We have not included a project contingency. © 2012 fgh 16 Head End Appendix 3 E Quote 12-0000 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Approved Drawings 1. Preliminary Drawings: Preliminary drawings will be furnished within two weeks from receipt of an acceptable executed copy of this quotation contract and a Purchase Order 2. Customer Approved Drawings: Customer must sign and return approved drawings. 3. State Approved Drawings: Oldcastle will submit for state approvals immediately after receipt of Customer Approved Drawings. Please note that Oldcastle has no control over time lines for state approvals. In the past 12 months, the average time for state approvals has been 4 weeks. The delivery date will be dependent on current production demands after State approval and will be estimated at time of receipt of Purchase Order. 4. Change Orders: Any change after Customer Approved Drawings will be considered a change order and will jeopardize the delivery date of the structure and be subject to additional charges. Conditions of Sale 1. This proposal is offered for acceptance and shall be valid for sixty (60) days from the date of quote. 2. Oldcastle will review customer’s credit and reserves the right to require special payment terms or reject Purchase Orders due to poor credit history. 3. Executed orders are not subject to cancellation by buyer except by written agreement with the seller. 4. The information contained herein is proprietary and strictly confidential 5. This Scope of Work and Pricing supersedes all prior proffers, both written and verbal. Inspection and Acceptance 1. All precast structures must be inspected and signed for by the customer at delivery for visible signs of damage to the structure and/or items inside the structure. 2. All applicable state and local inspections of the precast structure and/or approvals by third parties must take place at delivery. Otherwise, the structure will be considered to be acceptable at delivery. 3. All service work must be inspected and accepted immediately upon completion Warranty 1. Oldcastle provides a limited warranty (available on request) which can be summarized as follows: a. Ten (10) year structural precast concrete limited warranty b. One (1) year limited warranty for quality and workmanship of any services performed by Oldcastle c. One (1) year limited warranty for equipment manufactured and/or installed by Oldcastle d. Warranties on equipment (HVAC, electrical and lighting devices, etc.) not manufactured by Oldcastle will be passed through Oldcastle from the manufacturer to the customer 2. All other warranties, express or implied, with respect to the shelter, including without limitation, warranties of merchantability and fitness or suitability for a particular purpose are hereby disclaimed. Payment 1. Oldcastle requires progress payments for work completed or stored each month. 2. All invoices shall be submitted on the 25th of each month, projected through the end of the month. Payment is due within 30 days. All sums not paid when due shall be subject to a 1.5% per month interest charge on past due balances. 3. If the structure still has not shipped 30 days after the scheduled ship date, storage charges of $10.00 per day per section will be assessed. Additional maintenance charges may also be incurred at time of delivery. 4. If payment is not made on a timely basis, Oldcastle reserves a security interest in the precast structure as well as the right to take repossession and title to the structure if payment is not forthcoming. 5. Payment due Oldcastle shall not be dependent upon payment from any other party except where it can be shown that funds were withheld due to the workmanship of Oldcastle. 6. No retainage shall be deducted from payment. 7. Any applicable Federal, State or Local Taxes is included. © 2012 fgh 17 Head End Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Mainline Construction Cost Estimate Mainline BM2 (5/8)(8) BM2 (5/8)(20)S BM2A BM2C CFO002 CFO012 CFO012E CFO024 CFO048 CFO144 CFO288 CO144 (6M) CO288 (6M) HAPO [97-864] (D) (N)PE1-3G PF3-3(A) PM2A PM4 PM4A(36") PM11 PM12(3) R3-5 (W)HAPO (W)HBFO (W)HO1 Expected Project Labor (L) Unit Totals Quantities 30 3 - $41.10 $45.00 $20.55 $64.23 $0.75 $0.86 $0.66 $0.30 $0.79 $0.36 $0.47 $0.81 $0.81 $220.29 $74.20 $97.11 $24.73 $59 36 $59.36 $74.20 $17.19 $98.93 $1.30 $188.82 $157.36 $51.66 Materials (M) $21.77 $41.03 $9.84 $19.45 $0.67 $0.41 $0.14 $0.03 $2.24 $0.03 $0.03 $1.78 $2.65 $538.00 $34.83 $21.86 $13.70 $59 91 $59.91 $114.25 $5.07 $32.76 $0.00 $1.00 L&M Price $62.87 $86.03 $30.39 $83.68 $1.42 $1.27 $0.80 $0.33 $3.03 $0.39 $0.50 $2.59 $3.46 $758.29 $109.03 $118.97 $38.43 $119 27 $119.27 $188.45 $22.26 $131.69 $1.30 $188.82 $157.36 $52.66 Owner Extended Supplied PricePrice Revised Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.30 $0.30 $0.51 $1.05 $1.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18 Labor $1,233.00 $135.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Material $653.10 $123.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Owner Construction Suppliied Total Total $1,886.10 $258.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,144.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Extended PriceBuild Project $1,886.10 $258.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,144.19 Main Line Appendix 3 Revised Project Totals Mainline Underground BDO5 BM53T BM60(6)D BM60(6)DP BM60(4)D BM60(4)DP BM71 BM72 BM73 BM82 Maxcell 4" 3 Cell with locatable pull tape (2) 1x16 splitter cassette HBFO [97-864] (D) UM-TB(30) MICROTRENCH UD(0-1.25)(1-0.75)LW UD(1-1.25)LW UD(1-1.25)(2-.075)LW UD(2-1.25)(2-0.75)LW UD(2-1.25)LW UD(3-1.25)LW UD(4-1.25)LW UHF (12WX18Lx18H) UHF (24W (24Wx36Lx24H)T 36L 24H)T (Ti (Tier 22) UHF (30WX48LX24H) (Tier 22) UHF (30WX48LX24H)T (Tier 22) UHF (48WX48LX36H)T (Tier 22) UO002 UO004 UO006 UO008 UO012 UO024 UO048 UO072 UO096 UO144 UO216 UO288 UO432 LCP(576) Locate Wire (LW) 220 30 40 30 - 17,969 26,954 44,923 89,845 670 30 3 51,303 75,372 33,166 19,807 31,801 29,963 15,386 9,469 25,822 5,092 63,180 3 180,576 - - - Labor (L) $171.38 $41.10 $46.56 $31.68 $46.56 $25.13 $46.29 $22.00 $22.00 $23.14 $0.90 $35.00 $260.00 $9,894.87 $0.00 $8.25 $8.25 $9.00 $9.75 $9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $171.38 $505 $505.78 78 $343.50 $343.50 $429.37 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $1,345.96 $0.00 Materials (M) $94.13 $63.13 $48.21 $8.58 $17.95 $5.31 $1.95 $3.96 $25.61 $3.45 $610.00 $565.76 $7,281.44 $0.00 $0.21 $0.29 $0.69 $0.94 $0.56 $0.83 $1.68 $38.65 $500.40 $500 40 $320.52 $335.28 $948.59 $0.49 $0.31 $0.43 $0.58 $0.72 $1.06 $1.71 $2.19 $2.35 $12,944.00 $0.00 Price $265.51 $104.23 $94.77 $40.26 $64.51 $30.44 $46.29 $23.95 $25.96 $48.75 $4.35 $645.00 $825.76 $17,176.31 $16.00 $8.46 $8.54 $9.69 $10.69 $9.56 $10.83 $12.68 $210.03 $1,006.18 $1 006 18 $664.02 $678.78 $1,377.96 $1.38 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $1.20 $1.32 $1.47 $1.61 $1.95 $2.60 $3.08 $3.24 $14,289.96 $0.20 Owner Supplied Price Extended PriceRevised Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 19 Extended PriceBuild Project $37,703.60 $1,233.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,400.00 $7,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $148,244.25 $222,370.50 $404,307.00 $875,988.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $114,824.60 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $10,305.00 $1,288.11 $0.00 $45,659.67 $67,081.08 $29,517.74 $17,628.23 $28,302.89 $26,667.07 $13,693.54 $8,427.41 $22,981.58 $4,531.88 $56,230.20 $0.00 $4,037.88 $0.00 $20,708.60 $1,893.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24,400.00 $16,972.80 $0.00 $0.00 $3,773.49 $7,816.66 $30,996.87 $84,454.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,895.50 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $10,058.40 $2,845.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,699.31 $12,914.05 $8,939.27 $6,808.21 $27,293.85 $8,712.41 $138,301.02 $0.00 $38,832.00 $0.00 $58,412.20 $3,126.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,800.00 $24,772.80 $0.00 $0.00 $152,017.74 $230,187.16 $435,303.87 $960,443.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140,720.10 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $20,363.40 $4,133.87 $0.00 $45,659.67 $67,081.08 $29,517.74 $17,628.23 $38,002.20 $39,581.12 $22,632.81 $15,235.62 $50,275.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $58,412.20 $3,126.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,800.00 $24,772.80 $0.00 $0.00 $152,017.74 $230,187.16 $435,303.87 $960,443.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140,720.10 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $20,363.40 $4,133.87 $0.00 $45,659.67 $67,081.08 $29,517.74 $17,628.23 $38,002.20 $39,581.12 $22,632.81 $15,235.62 $50,275.43 $194,531.22 $0.00 $42,869.88 $36,115.20 $2,517,014.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $194,531.22 $0.00 $42,869.88 $36,115.20 $2,595,999.09 Main Line Appendix 3 Revised Project Totals Mainline UG - Best Method UD(1-1.25)LW UD(1-1.25)(2-.075)LW UD(2-1.25)(2-0.75)LW - ( ) HO1 (1-12) HO1 (13-48) 7840 RIBBON $0.23 $0.23 Materials (M) $1.98 $2.78 Price Owner Supplied Price Extended PriceRevised Project $0.62 $0.93 Owner Supplied Price $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $1.00 $25.00 $32.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $160.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.00 $162.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 Labor (L) $157.36 $518.97 $21.29 1 $32,000.00 Materials (M) Price $157.36 $249.96 $768.93 $1.00 $22.29 $34,800.00 $66,800.00 Owner Supplied Price $490.00 $9,581.38 $0.00 $1.00 Extended PriceBuild Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Extended PriceRevised Project $24.00 $31.30 1 Labor (L) Price - Revised Project Totals Mainline - Headend WMSB(24) BM21 HO1 (1-12) NGF Frames and Terminations $1.75 $2.55 Revised Project Totals Mainline - Splicing Labor (L) Extended PriceBuild Project , $188,160.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 , $7,840.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 , $196,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 , $196,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $196,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $196,000.00 Extended PriceRevised Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,801.00 Extended PriceBuild Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,000.00 Labor $2,371,751.98 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,800.00 Material $524,732.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,800.00 $66,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,801.00 $66,801.00 $2,781,958.20 $0.00 $2,860,944.28 GRAND TOTAL $2,860,944.28 Main Line Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation 2GB Internet (all inclusive) 2012 Internet Pricing Analysis (Pricing historically remains level or decreases over time) Internet Cost Model 10GigE capacity, 2 GigE utilized - Wholesale: Level 3 Full GigE POP DCC Hotel X-Connect = $325 POP to Miami 10GE (linear) = $6,536.50 (approx 139 mi.) Miami DCC Hotel Access Tran MRC = $1,915 Cabinet Colo Full Rack DC Power to Cabinet Colo Hurricane Electric Gig E DIA (Full 1,000Mbs Port) - 3 Year DCC Hotel X-Connect = $325 -------------------------------------------- PB $3,500.00 $325.00 $6,536.50 $1,915.00 $650.00 $350.00 $900.00 $325.00 $14,501.50 Total Internet Cost (Monthly Recurring Charge) $14,501.50 MRC * Pricing based on Chicago NAP. Pricing at most NAPs similar. 21 Internet Appendix 3 Quote Date: May 22, 2012 Quote #: Expiration Date: Tab: Project: To: Summary Peilican Bay Salesperson Sales Engineer Scott Heidel Luis Mantilla pp g Method pp g Terms Delivery Date Payment Terms NET 30 Site Site Total Pelican Bay POP $ 6,363.00 NAP of the Americas, Miami $ 6,363.00 Spares $ 4,340.25 Total $ 22 17,066.25 Transport Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Base Dec-13 0 Jan-14 1 Feb-14 2 Mar-14 3 Pro Forma May-14 5 Apr-14 4 Jun-14 6 Jul-14 7 Aug-14 8 Sep-14 9 Pro Forma Oct-14 10 Nov-14 11 Dec-14 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - 200 - Total 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - Residential Data Subs Business - C&I 650 - - - - - - - - - - Total 650 - - - - - - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements - - - - - - - - Net Operating Sub total - - - - - - - - Jan-15 13 Pro Forma Mar-15 15 Feb-15 14 - - - 200 - 1,800 - 3,400 - 5,000 - 200 200 1,800 3,400 - - - - - - - - 14,502 14,502 300 300 14,802 14,502 14,502 301 301 14,803 2,420 1,000 1,000 420 14,502 14,502 302 302 1,417 1,417 18,641 2,427 1,003 1,003 421 16,502 2,000 14,502 303 303 1,421 1,421 20,653 (14,802) (14,803) (18,641) (20,653) 23 Apr-15 16 May-15 17 663,000 663,000 663,000 Jun-15 18 Jul-15 19 663,000 663,000 663,000 Pro Forma Aug-15 20 Sep-15 21 - - Oct-15 22 - - 663,000 663,000 663,000 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 5,000 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,434 1,006 1,006 422 16,502 2,000 14,502 304 304 1,425 1,425 20,665 2,441 1,008 1,009 424 32,502 18,000 14,502 305 305 5,500 2,500 3,000 1,429 1,429 42,177 2,448 1,011 1,012 425 48,502 34,000 14,502 306 306 5,515 2,507 3,008 1,433 1,433 58,204 2,455 1,014 1,015 426 64,502 50,000 14,502 307 307 5,530 2,514 3,016 1,437 1,437 74,231 2,461 1,016 1,018 427 79,502 65,000 14,502 308 308 5,545 2,521 3,024 1,441 1,441 89,257 2,468 1,019 1,021 428 79,502 65,000 14,502 309 309 5,560 2,528 3,032 1,445 1,445 89,284 2,475 1,022 1,024 429 79,502 65,000 14,502 310 310 5,575 2,535 3,040 1,449 1,449 89,311 2,482 1,025 1,027 430 79,502 65,000 14,502 311 311 5,590 2,542 3,048 1,453 1,453 89,338 2,488 1,027 1,030 431 79,502 65,000 14,502 312 312 5,605 2,549 3,056 1,457 1,457 89,364 2,496 1,030 1,033 433 79,502 65,000 14,502 313 313 5,620 2,556 3,064 1,461 1,461 89,392 2,503 1,033 1,036 434 79,502 65,000 14,502 314 314 5,635 2,563 3,072 1,465 1,465 89,419 (20,665) (42,177) (58,204) (74,231) 573,743 (89,284) (89,311) 573,662 (89,364) (89,392) 573,581 Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Base Dec-13 0 Jan-14 1 Feb-14 2 Mar-14 3 Pro Forma May-14 5 Apr-14 4 412,800 412,800 - 412,800 372,800 40,000 412,800 - 412,800 Jun-14 6 Jul-14 7 Aug-14 8 Pro Forma Oct-14 10 Sep-14 9 Nov-14 11 Dec-14 12 Jan-15 13 Pro Forma Mar-15 15 Feb-15 14 Apr-15 16 May-15 17 Jun-15 18 Pro Forma Aug-15 20 Jul-15 19 Sep-15 21 Oct-15 22 - - - - 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - - - 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 685,247 57,831 76,451 249,013 248,151 53,802 685,247 651,251 76,451 249,013 248,151 23,835 53,802 651,251 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 574,801 249,013 248,151 23,835 53,802 574,801 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 714,084 249,013 248,151 163,119 53,802 714,084 465,071 248,151 163,119 53,802 465,071 16,347 16,347 16,347 - - - - 7,107,551 (592,390) (592,395) (685,198) (651,207) (737,882) (737,888) (574,776) (737,900) (714,070) (465,064) (16,344) (103,521) (103,523) (103,525) (87,174) (87,175) (87,177) 1,005,249 1,597,698 2,190,147 2,875,394 3,526,645 4,264,565 5,002,485 5,577,286 6,315,206 7,029,290 7,494,361 7,510,708 7,527,055 7,543,402 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 412,800 412,800 412,800 412,800 59 59 54 54 49 49 44 44 38 38 32 32 25 25 20 20 14 14 7 7 3 3 8 8 6 6 4 4 8 8 7 7 5 5 87,182 48,682 38,500 16,347 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 16,347 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 16,347 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 16,347 103,529 16,347 103,529 16,347 103,529 87,182 87,182 87,182 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance - - - - - 7,101,774 7 101 774 7,101,774 (601,572) 7,101,774 6 500 202 6,500,202 (604,982) 6,500,202 5 895 219 5,895,219 (716,525) 5,895,219 5 178 694 5,178,694 (686,278) 5,178,694 4 492 416 4,492,416 (781,032) 4,492,416 3 711 384 3,711,384 (787,291) 3,711,384 2 924 093 2,924,093 (627,494) 2,924,093 2 296 599 2,296,599 (816,372) 2,296,599 1 480 228 1,480,228 (812,672) 1,480,228 667 555 667,555 (582,366) 667,555 85 190 85,190 514,234 85,190 599 423 599,423 (236,064) 599,423 363 359 363,359 (236,187) 363,359 127 172 127,172 426,691 127,172 553 863 553,863 (219,985) 553,863 333 878 333,878 (220,014) 333,878 113 864 113,864 442,957 113,864 556 821 556,821 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) - - - - - 5,777 5,777 9,182 14,959 12,587 27,547 16,525 44,072 20,268 64,340 24,509 88,849 28,750 117,599 32,053 149,652 36,294 185,946 40,398 226,345 43,071 269,416 43,165 312,581 43,259 355,840 43,353 399,192 43,447 442,639 43,447 486,086 43,447 529,533 43,447 572,980 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) - - - - - 7,107,551 6,515,161 5,922,766 5,222,766 4,556,756 3,800,233 3,041,692 2,446,251 1,666,174 893,900 354,605 912,004 719,199 526,365 996,502 819,964 643,397 1,129,801 24 Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Nov-15 23 Dec-15 24 - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - 6,500 - Total 6,500 Residential Data Subs Business - C&I Total Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts Pro Forma Feb-16 26 Jan-16 25 663,000 663,000 663,000 Mar-16 27 - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements 2,510 1,036 1,039 435 79,502 65,000 14,502 315 315 5,650 2,570 3,080 1,469 1,469 89,446 Net Operating Sub total (89,446) Apr-16 28 May-16 29 663,000 663,000 663,000 Jun-16 30 Jul-16 31 Pro Forma Aug-16 32 Sep-16 33 - - Oct-16 34 Nov-16 35 Dec-16 36 - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,516 1,038 1,042 436 79,502 65,000 14,502 316 316 5,665 2,577 3,088 1,473 1,473 89,472 2,523 1,041 1,045 437 79,502 65,000 14,502 317 317 5,680 2,584 3,096 1,477 1,477 89,499 2,530 1,044 1,048 438 79,502 65,000 14,502 318 318 5,695 2,591 3,104 1,481 1,481 89,526 2,538 1,047 1,051 440 79,502 65,000 14,502 319 319 5,710 2,598 3,112 1,485 1,485 89,554 2,544 1,049 1,054 441 79,502 65,000 14,502 320 320 5,725 2,605 3,120 1,489 1,489 89,580 2,551 1,052 1,057 442 79,502 65,000 14,502 321 321 5,740 2,612 3,128 1,493 1,493 89,607 2,558 1,055 1,060 443 79,502 65,000 14,502 322 322 5,755 2,619 3,136 1,497 1,497 89,634 2,565 1,058 1,063 444 79,502 65,000 14,502 323 323 5,770 2,626 3,144 1,501 1,501 89,661 2,572 1,061 1,066 445 79,502 65,000 14,502 324 324 5,785 2,633 3,152 1,505 1,505 89,688 (89,472) 573,501 (89,526) (89,554) 573,420 (89,607) (89,634) 573,339 (89,688) 663,000 663,000 663,000 25 663,000 663,000 663,000 Pro Forma Feb-17 38 Jan-17 37 663,000 663,000 663,000 Mar-17 39 - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - 2,580 1,064 1,069 447 79,502 65,000 14,502 325 325 5,800 2,640 3,160 1,509 1,509 89,716 2,586 1,066 1,072 448 79,502 65,000 14,502 326 326 5,815 2,647 3,168 1,513 1,513 89,742 2,593 1,069 1,075 449 79,502 65,000 14,502 327 327 5,830 2,654 3,176 1,517 1,517 89,769 (89,716) 573,258 (89,769) Apr-17 40 May-17 41 702,780 702,780 702,780 Jun-17 42 Jul-17 43 702,780 702,780 702,780 Pro Forma Aug-17 44 Sep-17 45 - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,600 1,072 1,078 450 79,502 65,000 14,502 328 328 5,845 2,661 3,184 1,521 1,521 89,796 2,607 1,075 1,081 451 79,675 65,173 14,502 329 329 5,860 2,668 3,192 1,525 1,525 89,996 2,615 1,078 1,084 453 79,849 65,347 14,502 330 330 5,876 2,675 3,201 1,529 1,529 90,199 2,622 1,081 1,087 454 80,023 65,521 14,502 331 331 5,892 2,682 3,210 1,533 1,533 90,401 2,629 1,084 1,090 455 80,198 65,696 14,502 332 332 5,908 2,689 3,219 1,537 1,537 90,604 2,635 1,086 1,093 456 80,373 65,871 14,502 333 333 5,924 2,696 3,228 1,541 1,541 90,806 2,643 1,089 1,096 458 80,549 66,047 14,502 334 334 5,940 2,703 3,237 1,545 1,545 91,011 2,650 1,092 1,099 459 80,725 66,223 14,502 335 335 5,956 2,710 3,246 1,549 1,549 91,215 2,657 1,095 1,102 460 80,902 66,400 14,502 336 336 5,972 2,717 3,255 1,553 1,553 91,420 2,664 1,098 1,105 461 81,079 66,577 14,502 337 337 5,988 2,724 3,264 1,557 1,557 91,625 (89,796) 573,004 (90,199) (90,401) 612,176 (90,806) (91,011) 611,565 (91,420) (91,625) Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Dec-15 24 Nov-15 23 Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Pro Forma Feb-16 26 Jan-16 25 Mar-16 27 Apr-16 28 May-16 29 Jun-16 30 Pro Forma Aug-16 32 Jul-16 31 Sep-16 33 Oct-16 34 Nov-16 35 Dec-16 36 Pro Forma Feb-17 38 Jan-17 37 Mar-17 39 Apr-17 40 May-17 41 Jun-17 42 Pro Forma Aug-17 44 Jul-17 43 Sep-17 45 9 9 8 8 6 6 11 11 9 9 8 8 12 12 10 10 9 9 13 13 11 11 10 10 14 14 12 12 11 11 15 15 13 13 12 12 16 16 15 15 13 13 18 18 16 16 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 48,682 38,500 - 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 51,603 35,579 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 (87,173) (87,174) (87,176) (87,171) (87,173) (87,174) (87,170) (87,172) (87,173) (87,169) (87,171) (87,172) (87,168) (87,170) (87,171) (87,167) (87,169) (87,170) (87,166) (87,167) (87,169) (87,164) (87,166) 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance (220,065) 556,821 336 756 336,756 (220,093) 336,756 116 663 116,663 442,878 116,663 559 541 559,541 (220,144) 559,541 339 397 339,397 (220,173) 339,397 119 223 119,223 442,799 119,223 562 022 562,022 (220,224) 562,022 341 798 341,798 (220,253) 341,798 121 545 121,545 442,719 121,545 564 264 564,264 (220,304) 564,264 343 961 343,961 (220,333) 343,961 123 628 123,628 442,639 123,628 566 266 566,266 (220,384) 566,266 345 882 345,882 (220,413) 345,882 125 469 125,469 442,386 125,469 567 856 567,856 (220,813) 567,856 347 043 347,043 (221,016) 347,043 126 027 126,027 481,560 126,027 607 586 607,586 (221,419) 607,586 386 167 386,167 (221,625) 386,167 164 542 164,542 480,949 164,542 645 491 645,491 (222,031) 645,491 423 460 423,460 (222,238) 423,460 201 222 201,222 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) 43,447 616,427 43,447 659,873 43,447 703,320 43,447 746,767 43,447 790,214 43,447 833,661 43,447 877,108 43,447 920,554 43,447 964,001 43,447 1,007,448 43,447 1,050,895 43,447 1,094,342 43,447 1,137,789 43,447 1,181,235 43,447 1,224,682 43,447 1,268,129 43,447 1,311,576 43,447 1,355,023 43,447 1,398,470 43,447 1,441,916 43,447 1,485,363 43,447 1,528,810 43,447 1,572,257 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) 953,182 776,536 1,262,861 1,086,164 909,437 1,395,683 1,218,906 1,042,100 1,528,266 1,351,409 1,174,523 1,660,608 1,483,671 1,306,705 1,792,538 1,615,172 1,437,603 1,962,609 1,784,637 1,606,458 2,130,854 1,952,270 1,773,479 Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment 26 Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Oct-17 46 Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts 702,780 702,780 702,780 Nov-17 47 Dec-17 48 - - Pro Forma Feb-18 50 Jan-18 49 702,780 702,780 702,780 Mar-18 51 - - Apr-18 52 May-18 53 702,780 702,780 702,780 Jun-18 54 Jul-18 55 - - 702,780 702,780 702,780 Pro Forma Aug-18 56 Sep-18 57 - - Oct-18 58 702,780 702,780 702,780 Nov-18 59 Dec-18 60 - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - Total 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Residential Data Subs Business - C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,671 1,101 1,108 462 81,257 66,755 14,502 338 338 6,004 2,731 3,273 1,561 1,561 91,831 2,679 1,104 1,111 464 81,435 66,933 14,502 339 339 6,020 2,738 3,282 1,565 1,565 92,038 2,686 1,107 1,114 465 81,613 67,111 14,502 340 340 6,036 2,745 3,291 1,569 1,569 92,244 2,693 1,110 1,117 466 81,792 67,290 14,502 341 341 6,052 2,752 3,300 1,573 1,573 92,451 2,700 1,113 1,120 467 81,971 67,469 14,502 342 342 6,068 2,759 3,309 1,577 1,577 92,658 2,708 1,116 1,123 469 82,151 67,649 14,502 343 343 6,084 2,766 3,318 1,581 1,581 92,867 2,715 1,119 1,126 470 82,331 67,829 14,502 344 344 6,100 2,773 3,327 1,585 1,585 93,075 2,722 1,122 1,129 471 82,512 68,010 14,502 345 345 6,116 2,780 3,336 1,589 1,589 93,284 2,729 1,125 1,132 472 82,693 68,191 14,502 346 346 6,132 2,787 3,345 1,593 1,593 93,493 2,737 1,128 1,135 474 82,875 68,373 14,502 347 347 6,148 2,794 3,354 1,597 1,597 93,704 2,744 1,131 1,138 475 83,057 68,555 14,502 348 348 6,164 2,801 3,363 1,601 1,601 93,914 2,751 1,134 1,141 476 83,240 68,738 14,502 349 349 6,180 2,808 3,372 1,605 1,605 94,125 2,758 1,137 1,144 477 83,423 68,921 14,502 350 350 6,196 2,815 3,381 1,609 1,609 94,336 2,766 1,140 1,147 479 83,607 69,105 14,502 351 351 6,213 2,823 3,390 1,613 1,613 94,550 2,773 1,143 1,150 480 83,791 69,289 14,502 352 352 6,230 2,831 3,399 1,617 1,617 94,763 610,949 (92,038) (92,244) 610,329 (92,658) (92,867) 609,705 (93,284) (93,493) 609,076 (93,914) (94,125) 608,444 (94,550) (94,763) Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements Net Operating Sub total 27 Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Nov-17 47 Oct-17 46 Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Dec-17 48 Pro Forma Feb-18 50 Jan-18 49 Mar-18 51 Apr-18 52 May-18 53 Jun-18 54 Pro Forma Aug-18 56 Jul-18 55 Sep-18 57 Oct-18 58 Nov-18 59 Dec-18 60 15 15 19 19 18 18 16 16 21 21 19 19 18 18 22 22 20 20 19 19 23 23 22 22 20 20 25 25 23 23 Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 54,699 32,483 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 87,182 57,981 29,201 87,182 Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total (87,167) (87,163) (87,164) (87,166) (87,161) (87,163) (87,164) (87,160) (87,162) (87,163) (87,159) (87,160) (87,162) (87,157) (87,159) 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 480,335 201,222 681 557 681,557 (222,648) 681,557 458 909 458,909 (222,855) 458,909 236 055 236,055 479,716 236,055 715 771 715,771 (223,266) 715,771 492 505 492,505 (223,477) 492,505 269 029 269,029 479,094 269,029 748 123 748,123 (223,891) 748,123 524 233 524,233 (224,102) 524,233 300 131 300,131 478,466 300,131 778 598 778,598 (224,520) 778,598 554 078 554,078 (224,732) 554,078 329 347 329,347 477,835 329,347 807 182 807,182 (225,154) 807,182 582 028 582,028 (225,369) 582,028 356 660 356,660 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) 43,447 1,615,704 43,447 1,659,151 43,447 1,702,597 43,447 1,746,044 43,447 1,789,491 43,447 1,832,938 43,447 1,876,385 43,447 1,919,832 43,447 1,963,278 43,447 2,006,725 43,447 2,050,172 43,447 2,093,619 43,447 2,137,066 43,447 2,180,513 43,447 2,223,959 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) 2,297,261 2,118,060 1,938,652 2,461,815 2,281,997 2,101,967 2,624,508 2,444,064 2,263,410 2,785,323 2,604,250 2,422,966 2,944,248 2,762,541 2,580,619 Accumulated Capital Investment Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance 28 Monthly Financials - Loan Appendix 3 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 Pro-Forma Annual Cash Flows Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Estimated Operating Receipts Broadband Services Other Data Service Collocation Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts Avg Avg Base 2012-2013 0 2014 1 2015 2 - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases T Transportation t ti R Reimburse i b Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements Net Operating Sub total Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 2016 3 Pro Forma 2018 5 2017 4 2019 6 2020 7 2021 8 2022 9 Pro Forma 2023 10 2024 11 2025 12 2026 13 2027 14 Pro Forma 2028 15 1,989,000 1,989,000 1,989,000 2,652,000 2,652,000 2,652,000 2,771,340 2,771,340 2,771,340 2,811,120 2,811,120 2,811,120 2,937,620 2,937,620 2,937,620 2,979,787 2,979,787 2,979,787 3,113,878 3,113,878 3,113,878 3,158,574 3,158,574 3,158,574 3,300,710 3,300,710 3,300,710 3,348,089 3,348,089 3,498,753 3,498,753 3,548,974 3,548,974 3,708,678 3,708,678 3,761,913 3,761,913 3,348,089 3,498,753 3,548,974 3,708,678 3,761,913 33 33 5,725 5,725 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - 7,281 3,009 3,009 1,263 76,510 4,000 72,510 1,510 1,510 4,263 4,263 89,564 29,743 12,279 12,306 5,158 861,024 687,000 174,024 3,726 3,726 84,402 30,462 36,528 17,412 978,895 30,740 12,678 12,738 5,324 954,024 780,000 174,024 3,870 3,870 87,138 31,470 37,680 17,988 1,075,772 31,758 13,090 13,170 5,498 967,678 793,654 174,024 4,014 4,014 89,940 32,478 38,898 18,564 1,093,390 32,793 13,515 13,602 5,676 993,443 819,419 174,024 4,158 4,158 92,823 33,489 40,194 19,140 1,123,217 33,849 13,954 14,034 5,861 1,020,047 846,023 174,024 4,302 4,302 95,802 34,596 41,490 19,716 1,154,000 34,925 14,407 14,466 6,052 1,047,515 873,491 174,024 4,446 4,446 98,862 35,748 42,801 20,313 1,185,748 36,020 14,875 14,898 6,247 1,075,872 901,848 174,024 4,590 4,590 102,138 36,900 44,220 21,018 1,218,620 37,139 15,358 15,330 6,451 1,105,159 931,135 174,024 4,734 4,734 105,456 38,058 45,660 21,738 1,252,488 38,293 15,856 15,777 6,660 1,135,399 961,375 174,024 4,878 4,878 108,886 39,318 47,110 22,458 1,287,456 39,519 16,364 16,282 6,873 1,171,732 992,139 179,593 5,034 5,034 112,370 40,576 48,618 23,177 1,328,655 40,783 16,888 16,803 7,093 1,209,227 1,023,887 185,340 5,195 5,195 115,966 41,875 50,173 23,918 1,371,172 42,089 17,428 17,341 7,320 1,247,922 1,056,652 191,271 5,361 5,361 119,677 43,215 51,779 24,684 1,415,050 43,435 17,986 17,895 7,554 1,287,856 1,090,465 197,391 5,533 5,533 123,507 44,597 53,436 25,474 1,460,331 44,825 18,561 18,468 7,796 1,329,067 1,125,360 203,708 5,710 5,710 127,459 46,025 55,146 26,289 1,507,062 - (89,564) 1,010,105 1,576,228 1,677,950 1,687,903 1,783,620 1,794,039 1,895,258 1,906,086 2,013,254 2,019,434 2,127,581 2,133,924 2,248,347 2,254,851 29 Annual Financials - Loan Appendix 3 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 Pro-Forma Annual Cash Flows Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment Base 2012-2013 0 2014 1 412,800 412,800 412,800 372,800 40,000 412,800 - 412,800 2015 2 2016 3 Pro Forma 2018 5 2017 4 2019 6 2020 7 2021 8 Pro Forma 2023 10 2022 9 2024 11 2025 12 2026 13 7,700,000 301 7,700,301 99 99 125 125 181 181 248 248 315 315 390 390 470 470 558 558 647 647 668 668 689 689 5,164,486 231,323 152,902 1,992,106 1,985,205 326,238 95,341 381,371 5,164,486 697 456 697,456 389,456 308,000 1,982,463 498,027 744,452 489,357 23,835 226,792 2,679,919 11,046,183 046 183 607,551 438,633 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 644,004 402,180 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 682,644 363,539 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 723,602 322,581 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 767,019 279,165 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 813,040 233,144 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 861,822 184,361 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 913,531 132,652 1,046,183 11,046,183 046 183 968,343 77,840 1,046,183 2,535,815 (2,679,820) (1,046,058) (1,046,002) (1,045,935) (1,045,868) (1,045,793) (1,045,713) (1,045,625) (1,045,536) 5,577,286 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 Pro Forma 2028 15 2027 14 711 711 734 734 757 757 348 728 348,728 328,988 19,739 348,728 - - - (1,045,515) (348,039) 711 734 757 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance - 2,296,599 2,296,599 (2,179,936) 2,296,599 116,663 8,808 116,663 125,471 110,586 125,471 236,057 120,606 236,057 356,663 216,390 356,663 573,053 226,884 573,053 799,937 328,183 799,937 1,128,120 339,099 1,128,120 1,467,219 446,356 1,467,219 1,913,575 452,557 1,913,575 2,366,132 1,258,180 2,366,132 3,624,312 1,613,273 3,624,312 5,237,585 1,727,719 5,237,585 6,965,304 1,734,246 6,965,304 8,699,550 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) - 149,652 149,652 510,221 659,873 521,362 1,181,235 521,362 1,702,597 521,362 2,223,959 521,362 2,745,321 521,362 3,266,683 521,362 3,788,045 521,362 4,309,407 521,362 4,830,769 521,362 5,352,131 521,362 5,873,493 521,362 6,394,855 521,362 6,916,217 521,362 7,437,579 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) - 2,446,251 776,536 1,306,706 1,938,654 2,580,622 3,318,374 4,066,620 4,916,165 5,776,626 6,744,344 7,718,263 9,497,805 11,632,440 13,881,521 16,137,129 1.81 1.82 1.92 1.93 6.10 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.45 1.51 1.60 1.61 30 1.70 1.71 Annual Financials - Loan Appendix 3 Simple Amortization Schedule Principal Term APR Principal (1) Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7,700,000 7,700,000 7,115,817 6,496,582 5,840,194 5,144,422 4,406,905 3,625,136 2,796,460 1,918,065 986,965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 584,183 619,234 656,388 695,772 737,518 781,769 828,675 878,396 931,099 986,965 7,700,000 Interest (1) 462,000 426,949 389,795 350,412 308,665 264,414 217,508 167,788 115,084 59,218 2,761,833 7,700,000 10 year 6.00% Monthly Principal Monthly Interest 48,681.94 51,602.86 54,699.03 57,980.97 61,459.83 65,147.42 69,056.26 73,199.64 77,591.62 82,247.11 641,667 38,500.00 35,579.08 32,482.91 29,200.97 25,722.11 22,034.52 18,125.68 13,982.30 9,590.32 4,934.83 230,153 31 Total Monthly Debt 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 87,182 871,819 Total Debt Service 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 1,046,183 10,461,833 Loan Sched Appendix 3 Projected 2015 Dollars Comcast Setup Charge Hold Charge (inactive months) Internet Bulk TV $ 41.54 $ $ $ $ $ $ Loan $ 6.39 52.13 35.00 84.99 94.99 99.99 $ $ $ Premier TV Plus 10% $ Premier HD TV Plus 20% $ 20% $ System Management $ Operational Expenses $ $ Reserve $ Debt Service $ $ Addnl Monthly Spend $ 47.50 $ Average Monthly Spend ###### $ 2.23 22.50 19.95 29.95 35.95 10.00 1.50 6.68 13.41 15.18 71.50 TV only Resident $ Quarterly $102.00 $2,520,960 Pelican Bay Yearly Savings (Loss) Annual Cost Comparison Comcast Full Time Resident Internet and Bulk TV 6 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV Service on Hold (6 6 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each 3 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each 1 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each Member Fee Monthly 34.00 Member Composition Aggregate Annual Savings $ 1,046 $ 676 $ 370 30% $ 720,820 $ 771 $ 676 $ 95 10% $ 61,877 $ 774 $ 676 $ 98 10% $ 63,953 $ 618 $ 676 $ (58) 25% $ (94,265) $ 514 $ 676 $ (162) 15% $ (158,218) $ 420 $ 676 $ (256) 10% $ (166,363) Yearly aggregate savings 32 $ 427,804 Member Benefit - Loan Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash Monthly Cash Flow – Cash Model Annual Cash Flow – Cash Model Impact on Each Pelican Bay Owner – Cash Model Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Base Dec-13 0 Jan-14 1 Feb-14 2 Mar-14 3 Pro Forma May-14 5 Apr-14 4 Jun-14 6 Jul-14 7 Aug-14 8 Sep-14 9 Pro Forma Oct-14 10 Nov-14 11 Dec-14 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - 200 - Total 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - Residential Data Subs Business - C&I 650 - - - - - - - - - - Total 650 - - - - - - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements - - - - - - - - Net Operating Sub total - - - - - - - - Jan-15 13 Pro Forma Mar-15 15 Feb-15 14 - - - 200 - 1,800 - 3,400 - 5,000 - 200 200 1,800 3,400 - - - - - - - - 14,502 14,502 300 300 14,802 14,502 14,502 301 301 14,803 2,420 1,000 1,000 420 14,502 14,502 302 302 1,417 1,417 18,641 2,427 1,003 1,003 421 16,502 2,000 14,502 303 303 1,421 1,421 20,653 (14,802) (14,803) (18,641) (20,653) 1 Apr-15 16 May-15 17 409,500 409,500 409,500 Jun-15 18 Jul-15 19 409,500 409,500 409,500 Pro Forma Aug-15 20 Sep-15 21 - - Oct-15 22 - - 409,500 409,500 409,500 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 5,000 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,434 1,006 1,006 422 16,502 2,000 14,502 304 304 1,425 1,425 20,665 2,441 1,008 1,009 424 32,502 18,000 14,502 305 305 5,500 2,500 3,000 1,429 1,429 42,177 2,448 1,011 1,012 425 48,502 34,000 14,502 306 306 5,515 2,507 3,008 1,433 1,433 58,204 2,455 1,014 1,015 426 64,502 50,000 14,502 307 307 5,530 2,514 3,016 1,437 1,437 74,231 2,461 1,016 1,018 427 79,502 65,000 14,502 308 308 5,545 2,521 3,024 1,441 1,441 89,257 2,468 1,019 1,021 428 79,502 65,000 14,502 309 309 5,560 2,528 3,032 1,445 1,445 89,284 2,475 1,022 1,024 429 79,502 65,000 14,502 310 310 5,575 2,535 3,040 1,449 1,449 89,311 2,482 1,025 1,027 430 79,502 65,000 14,502 311 311 5,590 2,542 3,048 1,453 1,453 89,338 2,488 1,027 1,030 431 79,502 65,000 14,502 312 312 5,605 2,549 3,056 1,457 1,457 89,364 2,496 1,030 1,033 433 79,502 65,000 14,502 313 313 5,620 2,556 3,064 1,461 1,461 89,392 2,503 1,033 1,036 434 79,502 65,000 14,502 314 314 5,635 2,563 3,072 1,465 1,465 89,419 (20,665) (42,177) (58,204) (74,231) 320,243 (89,284) (89,311) 320,162 (89,364) (89,392) 320,081 Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Base Dec-13 0 Jan-14 1 Feb-14 2 Mar-14 3 Pro Forma May-14 5 Apr-14 4 412,800 412,800 - 412,800 372,800 40,000 412,800 - 412,800 Jun-14 6 Jul-14 7 Aug-14 8 Pro Forma Oct-14 10 Sep-14 9 Nov-14 11 Dec-14 12 Jan-15 13 Pro Forma Mar-15 15 Feb-15 14 Apr-15 16 May-15 17 Jun-15 18 Pro Forma Aug-15 20 Jul-15 19 Sep-15 21 Oct-15 22 - - - - 7,700,000 7,700,000 - - - - 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 592,449 57,831 249,013 248,151 37,455 592,449 685,247 57,831 76,451 249,013 248,151 53,802 685,247 651,251 76,451 249,013 248,151 23,835 53,802 651,251 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 574,801 249,013 248,151 23,835 53,802 574,801 737,920 249,013 248,151 163,119 23,835 53,802 737,920 714,084 249,013 248,151 163,119 53,802 714,084 465,071 248,151 163,119 53,802 465,071 16,347 16,347 16,347 - - - - 7,107,551 (592,390) (592,395) (685,198) (651,207) (737,882) (737,888) (574,776) (737,900) (714,070) (465,064) (16,344) (16,342) (16,342) (16,343) 6 6 5 1,005,249 1,597,698 2,190,147 2,875,394 3,526,645 4,264,565 5,002,485 5,577,286 6,315,206 7,029,290 7,494,361 7,510,708 7,527,055 7,543,402 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 412,800 412,800 412,800 412,800 59 59 54 54 49 49 44 44 38 38 32 32 25 25 20 20 14 14 7 7 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 16,347 - 16,347 - 16,347 - - - - 16,347 16,347 16,347 16,347 16,347 16,347 - - - 6 6 6 6 5 5 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance - - - - - 7,101,774 7 101 774 7,101,774 (601,572) 7,101,774 6 500 202 6,500,202 (604,982) 6,500,202 5 895 219 5,895,219 (716,525) 5,895,219 5 178 694 5,178,694 (686,278) 5,178,694 4 492 416 4,492,416 (781,032) 4,492,416 3 711 384 3,711,384 (787,291) 3,711,384 2 924 093 2,924,093 (627,494) 2,924,093 2 296 599 2,296,599 (816,372) 2,296,599 1 480 228 1,480,228 (812,672) 1,480,228 667 555 667,555 (582,366) 667,555 85 190 85,190 260,734 85,190 345 923 345,923 (148,885) 345,923 197 038 197,038 (149,006) 197,038 48 032 48,032 260,373 48,032 308 405 308,405 (132,805) 308,405 175 600 175,600 (132,833) 175,600 42 767 42,767 276,639 42,767 319 406 319,406 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) - - - - - 5,777 5,777 9,182 14,959 12,587 27,547 16,525 44,072 20,268 64,340 24,509 88,849 28,750 117,599 32,053 149,652 36,294 185,946 40,398 226,345 43,071 269,416 43,165 312,581 43,259 355,840 43,353 399,192 43,447 442,639 43,447 486,086 43,447 529,533 43,447 572,980 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) - - - - - 7,107,551 6,515,161 5,922,766 5,222,766 4,556,756 3,800,233 3,041,692 2,446,251 1,666,174 893,900 354,605 658,504 552,878 447,225 751,044 661,686 572,300 892,386 2 Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Nov-15 23 Dec-15 24 - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - 6,500 - Total 6,500 Residential Data Subs Business - C&I Total Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts Pro Forma Feb-16 26 Jan-16 25 409,500 409,500 409,500 Mar-16 27 - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements 2,510 1,036 1,039 435 79,502 65,000 14,502 315 315 5,650 2,570 3,080 1,469 1,469 89,446 Net Operating Sub total (89,446) Apr-16 28 May-16 29 409,500 409,500 409,500 Jun-16 30 Jul-16 31 Pro Forma Aug-16 32 Sep-16 33 - - Oct-16 34 Nov-16 35 Dec-16 36 - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,516 1,038 1,042 436 79,502 65,000 14,502 316 316 5,665 2,577 3,088 1,473 1,473 89,472 2,523 1,041 1,045 437 79,502 65,000 14,502 317 317 5,680 2,584 3,096 1,477 1,477 89,499 2,530 1,044 1,048 438 79,502 65,000 14,502 318 318 5,695 2,591 3,104 1,481 1,481 89,526 2,538 1,047 1,051 440 79,502 65,000 14,502 319 319 5,710 2,598 3,112 1,485 1,485 89,554 2,544 1,049 1,054 441 79,502 65,000 14,502 320 320 5,725 2,605 3,120 1,489 1,489 89,580 2,551 1,052 1,057 442 79,502 65,000 14,502 321 321 5,740 2,612 3,128 1,493 1,493 89,607 2,558 1,055 1,060 443 79,502 65,000 14,502 322 322 5,755 2,619 3,136 1,497 1,497 89,634 2,565 1,058 1,063 444 79,502 65,000 14,502 323 323 5,770 2,626 3,144 1,501 1,501 89,661 2,572 1,061 1,066 445 79,502 65,000 14,502 324 324 5,785 2,633 3,152 1,505 1,505 89,688 (89,472) 320,001 (89,526) (89,554) 319,920 (89,607) (89,634) 319,839 (89,688) 409,500 409,500 409,500 3 409,500 409,500 409,500 Pro Forma Feb-17 38 Jan-17 37 409,500 409,500 409,500 Mar-17 39 - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - 2,580 1,064 1,069 447 79,502 65,000 14,502 325 325 5,800 2,640 3,160 1,509 1,509 89,716 2,586 1,066 1,072 448 79,502 65,000 14,502 326 326 5,815 2,647 3,168 1,513 1,513 89,742 2,593 1,069 1,075 449 79,502 65,000 14,502 327 327 5,830 2,654 3,176 1,517 1,517 89,769 (89,716) 319,758 (89,769) Apr-17 40 May-17 41 434,070 434,070 434,070 Jun-17 42 Jul-17 43 434,070 434,070 434,070 Pro Forma Aug-17 44 Sep-17 45 - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,600 1,072 1,078 450 79,502 65,000 14,502 328 328 5,845 2,661 3,184 1,521 1,521 89,796 2,607 1,075 1,081 451 79,675 65,173 14,502 329 329 5,860 2,668 3,192 1,525 1,525 89,996 2,615 1,078 1,084 453 79,849 65,347 14,502 330 330 5,876 2,675 3,201 1,529 1,529 90,199 2,622 1,081 1,087 454 80,023 65,521 14,502 331 331 5,892 2,682 3,210 1,533 1,533 90,401 2,629 1,084 1,090 455 80,198 65,696 14,502 332 332 5,908 2,689 3,219 1,537 1,537 90,604 2,635 1,086 1,093 456 80,373 65,871 14,502 333 333 5,924 2,696 3,228 1,541 1,541 90,806 2,643 1,089 1,096 458 80,549 66,047 14,502 334 334 5,940 2,703 3,237 1,545 1,545 91,011 2,650 1,092 1,099 459 80,725 66,223 14,502 335 335 5,956 2,710 3,246 1,549 1,549 91,215 2,657 1,095 1,102 460 80,902 66,400 14,502 336 336 5,972 2,717 3,255 1,553 1,553 91,420 2,664 1,098 1,105 461 81,079 66,577 14,502 337 337 5,988 2,724 3,264 1,557 1,557 91,625 (89,796) 319,504 (90,199) (90,401) 343,466 (90,806) (91,011) 342,855 (91,420) (91,625) Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Dec-15 24 Nov-15 23 Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements 7 7 Pro Forma Feb-16 26 Jan-16 25 7 7 Mar-16 27 6 6 9 9 Apr-16 28 May-16 29 8 8 7 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - Jun-16 30 10 10 - Pro Forma Aug-16 32 Jul-16 31 9 9 - 8 8 - Sep-16 33 11 11 - Oct-16 34 Nov-16 35 10 10 - 9 9 - - Dec-16 36 12 12 - Pro Forma Feb-17 38 Jan-17 37 11 11 - Mar-17 39 11 11 - 13 13 - Apr-17 40 May-17 41 13 13 - 12 12 - Jun-17 42 15 15 - Pro Forma Aug-17 44 Jul-17 43 14 14 - 13 13 - Sep-17 45 16 16 15 15 - - 7 7 6 9 8 7 10 9 8 11 10 9 12 11 11 13 13 12 15 14 13 16 15 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance (132,885) 319,406 186 521 186,521 (132,912) 186,521 53 609 53,609 276,560 53,609 330 169 330,169 (132,964) 330,169 197 205 197,205 (132,992) 197,205 64 212 64,212 276,480 64,212 340 692 340,692 (133,044) 340,692 207 648 207,648 (133,072) 207,648 74 576 74,576 276,400 74,576 350 976 350,976 (133,124) 350,976 217 853 217,853 (133,152) 217,853 84 701 84,701 276,320 84,701 361 020 361,020 (133,204) 361,020 227 816 227,816 (133,232) 227,816 94 584 94,584 276,068 94,584 370 653 370,653 (133,633) 370,653 237 020 237,020 (133,834) 237,020 103 186 103,186 300,032 103,186 403 217 403,217 (134,238) 403,217 268 979 268,979 (134,444) 268,979 134 535 134,535 299,421 134,535 433 956 433,956 (134,851) 433,956 299 105 299,105 (135,057) 299,105 164 048 164,048 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) 43,447 616,427 43,447 659,873 43,447 703,320 43,447 746,767 43,447 790,214 43,447 833,661 43,447 877,108 43,447 920,554 43,447 964,001 43,447 1,007,448 43,447 1,050,895 43,447 1,094,342 43,447 1,137,789 43,447 1,181,235 43,447 1,224,682 43,447 1,268,129 43,447 1,311,576 43,447 1,355,023 43,447 1,398,470 43,447 1,441,916 43,447 1,485,363 43,447 1,528,810 43,447 1,572,257 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) 802,947 713,482 1,033,489 943,972 854,426 1,174,353 1,084,756 995,131 1,314,978 1,225,301 1,135,596 1,455,362 1,365,605 1,275,820 1,595,335 1,505,149 1,414,762 1,758,240 1,667,449 1,576,451 1,919,319 1,827,915 1,736,305 Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment 4 Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Oct-17 46 Premium Dataa Customers Estimated Operating Receipts Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts 434,070 434,070 434,070 Nov-17 47 Dec-17 48 - - Pro Forma Feb-18 50 Jan-18 49 434,070 434,070 434,070 Mar-18 51 - - Apr-18 52 May-18 53 434,070 434,070 434,070 Jun-18 54 Jul-18 55 - - 434,070 434,070 434,070 Pro Forma Aug-18 56 Sep-18 57 - - Oct-18 58 434,070 434,070 434,070 Nov-18 59 Dec-18 60 - - Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - 6,500 - Total 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Residential Data Subs Business - C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,671 1,101 1,108 462 81,257 66,755 14,502 338 338 6,004 2,731 3,273 1,561 1,561 91,831 2,679 1,104 1,111 464 81,435 66,933 14,502 339 339 6,020 2,738 3,282 1,565 1,565 92,038 2,686 1,107 1,114 465 81,613 67,111 14,502 340 340 6,036 2,745 3,291 1,569 1,569 92,244 2,693 1,110 1,117 466 81,792 67,290 14,502 341 341 6,052 2,752 3,300 1,573 1,573 92,451 2,700 1,113 1,120 467 81,971 67,469 14,502 342 342 6,068 2,759 3,309 1,577 1,577 92,658 2,708 1,116 1,123 469 82,151 67,649 14,502 343 343 6,084 2,766 3,318 1,581 1,581 92,867 2,715 1,119 1,126 470 82,331 67,829 14,502 344 344 6,100 2,773 3,327 1,585 1,585 93,075 2,722 1,122 1,129 471 82,512 68,010 14,502 345 345 6,116 2,780 3,336 1,589 1,589 93,284 2,729 1,125 1,132 472 82,693 68,191 14,502 346 346 6,132 2,787 3,345 1,593 1,593 93,493 2,737 1,128 1,135 474 82,875 68,373 14,502 347 347 6,148 2,794 3,354 1,597 1,597 93,704 2,744 1,131 1,138 475 83,057 68,555 14,502 348 348 6,164 2,801 3,363 1,601 1,601 93,914 2,751 1,134 1,141 476 83,240 68,738 14,502 349 349 6,180 2,808 3,372 1,605 1,605 94,125 2,758 1,137 1,144 477 83,423 68,921 14,502 350 350 6,196 2,815 3,381 1,609 1,609 94,336 2,766 1,140 1,147 479 83,607 69,105 14,502 351 351 6,213 2,823 3,390 1,613 1,613 94,550 2,773 1,143 1,150 480 83,791 69,289 14,502 352 352 6,230 2,831 3,399 1,617 1,617 94,763 342,239 (92,038) (92,244) 341,619 (92,658) (92,867) 340,995 (93,284) (93,493) 340,366 (93,914) (94,125) 339,734 (94,550) (94,763) Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases Transportation Reimburse Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements Net Operating Sub total 5 Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Pelican Bay Foundation Pro-Forma Monthly Cash Flows FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment VOICE, VIDEO, DATA Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW - MONTHS 1-60 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Nov-17 47 Oct-17 46 Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements 14 14 - Dec-17 48 17 17 - Pro Forma Feb-18 50 Jan-18 49 17 17 - Mar-18 51 16 16 - 19 19 - Apr-18 52 May-18 53 18 18 - 17 17 - Jun-18 54 20 20 - Pro Forma Aug-18 56 Jul-18 55 19 19 - 18 18 - Sep-18 57 21 21 - Oct-18 58 Nov-18 59 20 20 - 20 20 - Dec-18 60 22 22 - 22 22 - 14 17 17 16 19 18 17 20 19 18 21 20 20 22 22 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 298,806 164,048 462 854 462,854 (135,468) 462,854 327 386 327,386 (135,674) 327,386 191 713 191,713 298,188 191,713 489 901 489,901 (136,086) 489,901 353 815 353,815 (136,296) 353,815 217 520 217,520 297,565 217,520 515 085 515,085 (136,711) 515,085 378 375 378,375 (136,921) 378,375 241 454 241,454 296,937 241,454 538 392 538,392 (137,340) 538,392 401 052 401,052 (137,552) 401,052 263 501 263,501 296,307 263,501 559 808 559,808 (137,975) 559,808 421 833 421,833 (138,188) 421,833 283 646 283,646 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) 43,447 1,615,704 43,447 1,659,151 43,447 1,702,597 43,447 1,746,044 43,447 1,789,491 43,447 1,832,938 43,447 1,876,385 43,447 1,919,832 43,447 1,963,278 43,447 2,006,725 43,447 2,050,172 43,447 2,093,619 43,447 2,137,066 43,447 2,180,513 43,447 2,223,959 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) 2,078,558 1,986,537 1,894,310 2,235,945 2,143,307 2,050,458 2,391,470 2,298,206 2,204,733 2,545,117 2,451,224 2,357,120 2,696,874 2,602,346 2,507,605 Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance 6 Monthly Financials - Cash Appendix 4 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 Pro-Forma Annual Cash Flows Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Estimated Operating Receipts Broadband Services Other Data Service Collocation Member Services Fee Residential Member Services Fee (Infrastructure, Management & Internet) Commercial Member Services Fee Total Estimated Operating Receipts Avg Avg Base 2012-2013 0 2014 1 2015 2 - - - Estimated Operating Disbursements Salaries and Benefits Regular Salaries Overtime Training & Travel Overhead & Benefits (42%) Benefits Other Professional Services Legal / Attorney Fees Engineering / Consulting Contractural Services Maintenance and Customer Support Rentals and Leases T Transportation t ti R Reimburse i b Other Contractual Services Marketing ISP Network Maintenance Contractual/Data Content Fee Utilities Telephone / Communications Utilities Maintenance and Repair Fiber Maint and Repair Electronics Maint and Repair Insurance Minor Equipment Minor Equipment Supplies and Materials Operating Supplies Fuels Fuels for Vehicles/Equip Total Est. Operating Disbursements Net Operating Sub total Residential Customers Business - Commercial and Industrial Customers 2016 3 Pro Forma 2018 5 2017 4 2019 6 2020 7 2021 8 2022 9 Pro Forma 2023 10 2024 11 2025 12 2026 13 2027 14 Pro Forma 2028 15 1,228,500 1,228,500 1,228,500 1,638,000 1,638,000 1,638,000 1,711,710 1,711,710 1,711,710 1,736,280 1,736,280 1,736,280 1,814,413 1,814,413 1,814,413 1,840,457 1,840,457 1,840,457 1,923,277 1,923,277 1,923,277 1,950,884 1,950,884 1,950,884 2,038,674 2,038,674 2,038,674 2,067,937 2,067,937 2,160,994 2,160,994 2,192,013 2,192,013 2,290,654 2,290,654 2,323,534 2,323,534 2,067,937 2,160,994 2,192,013 2,290,654 2,323,534 33 33 5,725 5,725 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 - 7,281 3,009 3,009 1,263 76,510 4,000 72,510 1,510 1,510 4,263 4,263 89,564 29,743 12,279 12,306 5,158 861,024 687,000 174,024 3,726 3,726 84,402 30,462 36,528 17,412 978,895 30,740 12,678 12,738 5,324 954,024 780,000 174,024 3,870 3,870 87,138 31,470 37,680 17,988 1,075,772 31,758 13,090 13,170 5,498 967,678 793,654 174,024 4,014 4,014 89,940 32,478 38,898 18,564 1,093,390 32,793 13,515 13,602 5,676 993,443 819,419 174,024 4,158 4,158 92,823 33,489 40,194 19,140 1,123,217 33,849 13,954 14,034 5,861 1,020,047 846,023 174,024 4,302 4,302 95,802 34,596 41,490 19,716 1,154,000 34,925 14,407 14,466 6,052 1,047,515 873,491 174,024 4,446 4,446 98,862 35,748 42,801 20,313 1,185,748 36,020 14,875 14,898 6,247 1,075,872 901,848 174,024 4,590 4,590 102,138 36,900 44,220 21,018 1,218,620 37,139 15,358 15,330 6,451 1,105,159 931,135 174,024 4,734 4,734 105,456 38,058 45,660 21,738 1,252,488 38,293 15,856 15,777 6,660 1,135,399 961,375 174,024 4,878 4,878 108,886 39,318 47,110 22,458 1,287,456 39,519 16,364 16,282 6,873 1,171,732 992,139 179,593 5,034 5,034 112,370 40,576 48,618 23,177 1,328,655 40,783 16,888 16,803 7,093 1,209,227 1,023,887 185,340 5,195 5,195 115,966 41,875 50,173 23,918 1,371,172 42,089 17,428 17,341 7,320 1,247,922 1,056,652 191,271 5,361 5,361 119,677 43,215 51,779 24,684 1,415,050 43,435 17,986 17,895 7,554 1,287,856 1,090,465 197,391 5,533 5,533 123,507 44,597 53,436 25,474 1,460,331 44,825 18,561 18,468 7,796 1,329,067 1,125,360 203,708 5,710 5,710 127,459 46,025 55,146 26,289 1,507,062 - (89,564) 249,605 562,228 618,320 613,063 660,413 654,709 704,657 698,396 751,218 739,282 789,822 776,963 830,323 816,472 7 Annual Financials - Cash Appendix 4 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 1.045 1.014 Pro-Forma Annual Cash Flows Scenario # PBF V4.0 - Majority Privately Financed 06.26.2012 Pelican Bay Foundation FTTp / Docsis 3.0 Cable Modem Deployment Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Foundation Prefund Project Fund - Loan Interest Income Total Non-Operating (Capital) Receipts Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursments: Debt Service Principal - Loan Interest - Loan Capital Expenditures Head End Core Optical Networking Materials Mainline Construction Service Drop Construction Customer Premise Install Materials Equipment & Tools Engineering Construction Management & Startup Other Costs Total Non-Operating (Capital) Disbursements Net Non-Operating (Capital) Sub total Accumulated Capital Investment Base 2012-2013 0 2014 1 412,800 412,800 412,800 372,800 40,000 412,800 - 412,800 2015 2 2016 3 7,700,000 301 7,700,301 89 89 5,164,486 231,323 152,902 1,992,106 1,985,205 326,238 95,341 381,371 5,164,486 Pro Forma 2018 5 2017 4 2019 6 2020 7 2021 8 Pro Forma 2023 10 2022 9 2024 11 2025 12 2026 13 Pro Forma 2028 15 2027 14 110 110 170 170 232 232 296 296 363 363 430 430 501 501 575 575 593 593 612 612 632 632 652 652 673 673 1,982,463 498,027 744,452 489,357 23,835 226,792 1,982,463 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,535,815 (1,982,374) 110 170 232 296 363 430 501 575 593 612 632 652 673 5,577,286 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 7,559,749 Estimated Net Working Cash Flow Beginning Working Cash Balance Ending Working Cash Balance - 2,296,599 2,296,599 (2,242,990) 2,296,599 53,609 40,976 53,609 94,585 97,128 94,585 191,713 91,933 191,713 283,646 139,347 283,646 422,993 133,710 422,993 556,703 183,725 556,703 740,428 177,535 740,428 917,963 230,431 917,963 1,148,394 218,513 1,148,394 1,366,907 269,072 1,366,907 1,635,979 256,233 1,635,979 1,892,212 309,613 1,892,212 2,201,825 295,783 2,201,825 2,497,608 Capital Reserve Fund (Period Transfer) Capital Reserve Fund (Accumulated) - 149,652 149,652 510,221 659,873 521,362 1,181,235 521,362 1,702,597 521,362 2,223,959 521,362 2,745,321 521,362 3,266,683 521,362 3,788,045 521,362 4,309,407 521,362 4,830,769 521,362 5,352,131 521,362 5,873,493 521,362 6,394,855 521,362 6,916,217 521,362 7,437,579 Actual Cash Balance (Accumulated) - 2,446,251 713,482 1,275,820 1,894,310 2,507,605 3,168,314 3,823,386 4,528,473 5,227,370 5,979,163 6,719,038 7,509,472 8,287,067 9,118,042 9,935,187 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 8 Annual Financials - Cash Appendix 4 Projected 2015 Dollars Comcast Setup Charge Hold Charge (inactive months) Internet Bulk TV System Management Operational Expenses Reserve Debt Service Loan $ 41.54 $ $ 6.39 $ 52.13 $ 35.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 87.13 2.23 22.50 10.00 1.50 Member Fee $ 6.68 42.92 Pelican Bay Yearly Savings Annual Cost ComparisonComcast Full Time Resident Internet and Bulk TV 6 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV Service on Hold (6 6 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each 3 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each 1 Month Resident Internet and Bulk TV renews service each TV only Resident Monthly 21.00 Quarterly $63.00 Member Composition Aggregate Annual Savings (Loss) $ 1,046 $ 515 $ 531 30% $ 1,034,675 $ 771 $ 515 $ 256 10% $ 166,495 $ 774 $ 515 $ 259 10% $ 168,572 $ 618 $ 515 $ 103 25% $ 167,281 $ 514 $ 515 $ (1) 15% $ (1,291) $ 420 $ 515 $ (95) 10% $ (61,745) Yearly aggregate savings 9 $ 1,473,987 Member Benefit - Cash Appendix 4 – Financial Model - Cash Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest Appendix 5 – Letters of Interest ...__ __...... SimplifY Your Life! DIGITAL TV • INTERNET • TELEPHONE • MEOlA PRODUCTIONS June 26, 2012 Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, FL 34108 Re: Notice of Project Interest -Service Provider To Pelican Bay Foundation Board: This letter shall serve as formal notice of interest in the Pelican Bay fiber project. Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc., a pioneer in the U.S. broadband world, has the skills and resources necessary to provide a full complement of video and internet content as well as all required ongoing customer service and technical support. We understand that Pelican Bay desires to provide high quality, low-cost bulk analog TV and Internet services to its members. Created in 1997 as a successor to a not-for-profit education initiative called Luminet, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc., provides cable modem and wireless Internet connections, landline and wireless voice services, and cable television services to the greater Winona, Minnesota, area, St. Charles, Wabasha, Lewiston, Rollingstone, and Stockton, Dover, Eyota, Elgin, Plainview, Lake City and Red Wing, Minnesota. The Wabasha build, completed in the fall of 2005 was among Minnesota's first fiber-to-the-home projects. All networks with the exception of Winona and St. Charles are FTIH communities. More than 40 percent of the stock in HBC is owned by Winona area educational institutions. The stock was purchased for the community's schools by anonymous benefactors as the new company was organized to build upon the history of Luminet. Begun in 1992, Luminet utilized a leased fiber-optic network to connect the community's educational institutions for the purpose of extending the reach of teaching and learning. - ofit corporation, operates in Winona a 130-mile hybrid fiber-coaxial network during th summer of 2000. The firm employs 106 people. Website: www.hbci.com E-Mail: [email protected] 58 Johnson Street ·Winona, MN 55987 phone (507) 474·4000 · fax (507) 454·5878 1242 Whitewater Avenue· St. Charles, MN 55972 phone (507) 932·8000 · fax (507) 932·8005 329 Hiawatha Drive East, Suite t ·Wabasha, MN 55981 phone (651) 560·4000 · fax (651) 565·0257 l Voice: (239) 642-4545 Fax: (239) 394-4895 www.marcocable.com www.nuvuweb.com June 20, 2012 Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, FL 34108 RE: Multimedia Service Delivery and Fiber Optic Networking Attention: Scott Bowles, P.E. To the Pelican Bay Foundation Board: Please accept this letter as timely and proper notice of NuVu’s interest in providing services to the Pelican Bay fiber project. NuVu is the mainland extension of Marco Island Cable and our consolidated business is now providing services to more than 11,000 customers and 150 associations in Collier and Lee counties. This year, Marco Cable / NuVu is activating 5,000 new subscribers on our 100% fiber to the premises infrastructure. Among our new customers are marquee Naples associations like the Vineyards, Bridgewater Bay and Countryside Golf and Country Club! NuVu uses high-capacity, IP-centric fiber optic cable connections to provide fast and steady communication services principally to condominium properties and planned communities. From hybrid fiber-coax deployments to the latest in fiber to the unit implementations, NuVu delivers reliable, high bandwidth products that are positioned as the singular, viable cable television alternative in Collier and Lee County! With the largest cable subscriber base on Marco Island, the aggressive but managed growth of our mainland business is built upon nineteen years of delivering cutting edge solutions and a commitment to providing a “boutique quality” customer service experience. We were the first cable operation in Collier county to deliver digital, high definition and two-way Internet services and NuVu has led the market with the first fiber to the home solutions delivered by a franchise operator in southwest Florida. Our history of technology leadership in this market makes NuVu the perfect partner for a progressive community association like Pelican Bay! Marco Cable / NuVu has more available analog and unencrypted digital channels than any provider in Southwest Florida. Our cost effective “in the clear” basic cable offering is coupled with more than 400 digital channels available for upgrade and an expansion this year to over 100 cable channels in High Definition. NuVu is contractually obligated to open a Naples office this fall to compliment our existing service center on Marco and our offices in Bonita Springs. As a local, independent cable company, our commitment to Naples is strong. With NuVu, the money Pelican Bay spends on its television and communications services will be invested locally. We employ local technicians, local customer service representatives and NuVu is investing more than $15 Million in fiber optic deployments and infrastructure improvements in this market over the next eighteen months. We would welcome an opportunity to participate in the Pelican Bay fiber project. Sincerely, Joshua M. Henschell General Manager Corporate Office: 914-B Park Ave • Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing address: P.O. Box 368 • Marco Island, FL 34146 COMMUNICATIONS S TATE M E NT OF Q U A LIFICATIONS MasTec North America, Inc. Organizational Structure Over the course of the last 80 years, MasTec companies have been involved in some of the largest and most complex infrastructure construction projects across the country. Our experience has given us a deep and comprehensive understanding of the markets we serve, as well as the ability to effectively manage people, projects and equipment. It allows us to proactively identify challenges, avoid pitfalls, and overcome obstacles, and to accurately set and meet expectations for schedule and budget. With offices across the country, a workforce of nearly 10,000 skilled professionals, and an extensive wholly owned fleet of specialized construction equipment, MasTec has the resources needed to reliably deliver quality work for even the most complicated jobs. Our geographic reach, scalability, and overall financial stability enable us to meet each of our customers changing needs on a daily basis. Our focus on innovation colors everything we do, and as we've grown, we've fostered it throughout every level of our organization. Construct. Connect. Evolve. We're always looking for ways to increase efficiency within the projects we take on, and within our own organization. We work to stay at the forefront of safety and environmentally responsible construction, and to increase the application of these concepts throughout each and every client project. We strive to find better solutions to the world's needs, as well as safer, more socially conscious ways to meet them both today and in the future. By consistently meeting our clients' high expectations for safety, quality and service, MasTec delivers the confidence they need to hire us again and again. MasTec and our subsidiaries are currently certified as a Minority-Controlled Company by the National Minority Suppliers Development Council (NMSDC) and as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) by the California Public Utilities Commission’s Supplier Clearinghouse. These certifications allow MasTec to be recognized as a minority contractor throughout the United States and across a range of industries that we serve. MasTec History & Background In 1969, Church & Tower, an underground utility construction firm, recruited Cuban immigrant Jorge Mas Canosa to bring discipline, focus and leadership to the company. Hardworking and driven by the fundamental belief that a person could succeed by capitalizing on opportunities, Mas Canosa saw Church & Tower playing a vital role in South Florida's economic boom and it's need for reliable utility infrastructure. Mas Canosa forged a relationship with a regional telephone company by demonstrating Church & Tower's cost-effective and expedient construction techniques. The telephone company awarded Church & Tower a long-term contract to install and repair underground phone lines throughout greater Miami and Fort Lauderdale. In 1971, Mas Canosa bought Church & Tower. With this leadership, Church & Tower achieved unprecedented growth. Customers embraced the firm's innovative methods and began looking to them for service and guidance beyond the company's traditional geographic reach. The Mas family saw South Florida-based Burnup & Sims as a major player in many markets, but also as a company struggling to define its culture and vision for the future. Under Jorge Mas' guidance, the two companies became one. On March 11, 1994, publicly traded Burnup & Sims acquired Church & Tower. Jorge Mas became the company's president and his father became the chairman, and the name was changed to MasTec. By folding our partners under the MasTec name and hiring personnel with specialized expertise, MasTec broadened its capabilities and geographic reach to be a part of some of the largest and most complex infrastructure construction across the country. Our extensive experience has given us a deep and comprehensive understanding of the markets we serve – renewable energy, electric power, gas and oil, water and sewer, communications, and installation-fulfillment services. Page 1 The MasTec Energy division was further developed through an aggressive acquisition strategy with a few key acquisitions that allowed specific market expansion into the VA, TX, and additional Southeastern US markets. These included EL Dalton Construction in 1997 and RD Moody Construction in 1997. Later MasTec included Summerville Construction and Three Phase Line Constructors to its group of Energy contractors. Continuing the growth strategy MasTec purchased EC Source in 2011 that provides Transmission Line development services. Memberships, Associations & Consortiums As the MasTec family continues to grow, we have aligned ourselves with a variety of respected industry associations, and work to benefit from their support. The following organizations are the backbone of MasTec's pride in our work, and of our commitment to our workers, communities, job sites, and customers. Making communications work. Union Representation Statement MasTec North America, Inc. is a Non Union company. Core Focus MasTec North America focuses on the Utility Construction industry including Electric Transmission and Distribution, Natural Gas Pipeline, and Telecommunications. Core Ethics & Values Statement MasTec North America, Inc. is committed to the highest ethical standards and to conducting its business with the utmost integrity. An unwavering adherence to high ethical standards provides a strong foundation on which the Company’s business and reputation can thrive, and is integral to creating and sustaining a successful, high-caliber Company. The Company's reputation depends on the conduct of its directors and employees. Every employee and director must play a part in maintaining the Company's reputation for the highest ethical standards. In accordance with applicable law, the Company has adopted a formal “Code of Business Conduct and Ethics” which is applicable to all employees, directors and anyone else acting on behalf of the Company. All employees and directors are required to abide by the terms of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Continuous Improvement At MasTec North America, Inc. we refine our business process through not only seeing how a past project or relationship performed, but constantly looking into the future of the Utility Industry to define “Best Fit” business practices to keep up with the constantly changing Utility Industry. As our utility clients continue to transform their business through Smart Grid applications, Safety Reporting Requirements, Changing Customer Base, and Financial Reporting requirements, it is our role to understand these changes and work to assist our clients obtain their goals. Minority Enterprise Status MasTec and our subsidiaries are currently certified as a Minority-Controlled Company by the National Minority Suppliers Development Council (NMSDC). These certifications allow MasTec to be recognized as a minority contractor throughout the United States and across a range of industries that we serve. An NMSDC certificate is included in the addendum section of this proposal. Page 2 Financial Data & Security Parent Company: MasTec, Inc (MTZ) Contracting Entity: MasTec North America, Inc Contact Information: (same for both) 800 S. Douglass Rd, 12th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Main (305) 991-1800 Fax (305) 406-1900 Putting your customers in touch with tomorrow. www.mastec.com Type: Corporation Bonding Information: Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America Jack Preston 4631 Woodland Corporate Blvd. Tampa, FL 33614 (813)-890-4078 Single Bonding Capacity: $100,000,000.00 Aggregate: In Excess of $500,000,000.00 Taxpayer Identification Number: 65-0829357 DUN: 04-223-6278 Page 3 Safety Safety is an integral part of everything we do, and we believe this benefits our employees, our clients, and our company as a whole. Our risk-management program is designed to promote training, safety awareness, accident prevention, and employee retention throughout every level of our organization. The MasTec commitment to safety is established through extensive employee training and dedication toward quality improvements throughout each of our industrial specialties. Our training centers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas are operated by experienced safety and training managers. These centers educate our employees in mandatory outside plant, aerial, and underground- construction practices and safety procedures that help ensure compliance with OSHA and DOT safety rules. We are committed to reinforcing safety and risk management through mandatory training and skill-level improvement programs, including: ■ Safety orientation for newly hired employees ■ Defensive and DOT seminars for fleet drivers ■ Trench safety classes for outside plant workers ■ Tailgate safety meetings at the onset of each project Stringent safety regulations are the standard at MasTec. Safety and risk management also assist to positively influence our bottom line, as well as those of our customers. We strive to manage costs by resolving outstanding issues in a timely manner, quickly investigating any incidents, regularly reporting financial impact, and immediately correcting any issues to prevent re-occurrences. Safety Philosophy Our safety philosophy allows us to develop and enforce workplace practices that ensure the safe-work ethic and environment of our employees. It is based upon the following principles: ■ All accidents, incidents, and injuries can be prevented and all workplace hazards can be safeguarded. ■ Each member of our organization, from management on down, is responsible for preventing accidents, incidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses and will be held accountable. ■ Training employees to work safely is essential and is the responsibility of management and supervisors. ■ Occupational safety and health is part of every employee's total job performance. ■ Working safely is a condition of employment. ■ The prevention of personal injuries and accidents is good business. Safety Associations ■ National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) ■ National Safety Council Staff Development, Training and Retention Field Level Training MasTec provides our customers with highly skilled crews. In the construction industry, the ability to provide skilled employees is a direct result of having experienced employees. Almost 40% of our personnel have been with MasTec for over 5 years. Not only do these employees provide quality project experience to our customers, they are also an integral part of training our new employees. Our new employees also participate in new hire orientations upon employment and depending upon their positions, are required to perform skill tests before they are allowed to operate specialized equipment. Page 4 Management Training MasTec has developed an internal Management Development Program. This program is designed for employees who are supervisors or employees who have the desire to become supervisors. The program contains three separate modules of classes with approximately five classes in each module. The first module is the basis of a general employee development program and provides the foundation for a career path in construction leadership opportunities. The second module provides employees with the knowledge and skills required to lead crews and to develop a career path in construction leadership opportunities. The third module provides employees with the skills and workforce knowledge required to lead and manage crews and to perform the job functions required of MasTec management. In 2009, we conducted over 300,000 man hours of training under this program. Key Elements of our Safety and Health Programs: Management Commitment ■ A staff of safety professionals manage the company’s safety programs; ■ Monthly meetings are held where executives and managers review safety metrics including incidents and trends; ■ Quarterly Safety Meetings for management and supervision; ■ Executives and Managers perform documented scheduled and non-scheduled job site inspections monthly and quarterly; ■ Financial resources for safety and training are committed from the capital budget to eliminate or control identified risks. Put the power of our workforce to work for you. Employee Participation ■ Weekly safety meetings to discuss work associated risks, hazards and controls; ■ Employee input is encouraged and solicited in making site specific safety decisions; Hazard Identification ■ Documented Daily Pre-Job Briefings (PJB) are held to identify the plan for the day and how any known hazards or risks will be eliminated or controlled to prevent incidents. ■ Supervisory level employees conduct documented safety inspections weekly; ■ Results of inspections and corrective actions for any deficiencies are reviewed and shared throughout the company. ■ Full time safety professionals available to be assigned to a project as contract or conditions require. Incident Management ■ Employees are encouraged/required to report all incidents including near-misses; ■ An incident reporting procedure is established for each project or job site; ■ All incidents are investigated to a level that identifies their root cause and corrective or preventative actions needed to prevent a recurrence; ■ Lessons learned from incidents are reviewed with all employees, company-wide. Division Construction Safety Metrics Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 Employees 4,065 2,941 2,703 3,459 Man Hours 8,545,454 6,698,568 6,396,858 5,047,355 TRIIR 4.12 3.31 3.10 2.65 DART 2.95 2.00 1.97 1.51 EMR 0.92 0.98 0.91 0.96 Page 5 Qualifications & Experience Communication and its infrastructure are constantly evolving, and MasTec is not only keeping pace with that evolution, we're driving it. Our engineering, design, construction, and maintenance services support the world's most advanced fiber optic, copper, wireless, and satellite networks. Our work spans large geographic areas all across the country, and we're able to supply crews and equipment to our customers 24/7. We combine cutting-edge technology, innovative solutions, skilled professionals, and an unfailing commitment to safety to ensure that our customers are able to meet their customers' communication needs with the highest levels of reliability and quality. Wireless With offices in nearly every state, MasTec has the ability to effectively mobilize the people, skills, and technologies our clients need to improve service to their customers. We design, construct, and maintain wireless-infrastructure systems for some of the nation's largest cellular, broadband, and digitaldata providers, and we deliver solutions that maximize cost-effectiveness, without sacrificing quality, safety, or service. Building competitive edge solutions. We keep our employees up-to-date and trained in the most current technologies and practices, and are committed to reducing negative impact on the environment. We create eco-friendly sites that minimize or eliminate the equipment hut and associated HVAC, reduce power and battery requirements, and decrease overall carbon emissions. MasTec handles all private, commercial, and government-cellular projects in-house to ensure that our clients' needs remain the priority at every stage of a site's development. Construction and Installation ■ Material Procurement and Management ■ Overhead and Underground Construction ■ OSP / ISP Fiber ■ Node Facilities ■ Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) ■ Hub-Site Locations Design and Engineering ■ RF Engineering ■ Material Procurement and Management ■ Municipality, Utility, Franchise Negotiations and Interface ■ Zoning and Permitting Approvals ■ Project Closeout Documents and Certification Ongoing Maintenance ■ Storm Remediation ■ On-Call Construction Services Page 6 Wireline MasTec has designed, constructed, and maintained successive generations of telecommunication networks for a wide variety of providers, and our work continues to support the world's most advanced fiber optic and copper networks in the country. We're constantly striving to evolve right alongside telecom technology, developing innovative solutions that help our partners deliver the highest quality services to their customers. Our managers understand the needs of governments and municipalities as well as those of residents, and have the ability to balance both to keep projects on track and on budget. We are experts at both long-haul and in-town installations, delivering robust Internet and telephone services to even the most remote areas. We've installed a significant portion of the nation's FTTP networks, helping to facilitate integrated voice, video and data services, higher bandwidths, and competitive service fees as needed. Our maintenance crews are on call 24/7, immediately responding to service interruptions and network damage, and often restoring service in moments. Anticipating needs. Innovating answers. Delivering results. For just about any telecomm need, MasTec provides reliable, scalable and cost-effective solutions designed to meet consumer demand today and in the future. Construction and Installation ■ FTTX Deployment ■ OSP Cabling (Underground and Aerial) ■ Copper/Coax Cable Systems ■ Joint Trench Systems ■ MDU Installation ■ Splicing and Testing ■ Systems Integration ■ Feasibility Studies and Financial Projections ■ Start-up and Testing Services ■ Right-of-Way ■ Cabling/Plowing ■ Directional Boring ■ Trenching ■ Micro Trench ■ Rail Plow Ongoing Maintenance ■ Emergency Restoration ■ Pole Replacement and Removal ■ Storm Remediation ■ On-Call Construction Services Design and Engineering Page 7 Broadband MasTec has been a leader in broadband technology since its inception, and we've remained at the top of the industry throughout each successive phase of its evolution. We've installed countless miles of CATV systems, and our expertise has become a driving factor in next-generation cable networks as well. We work with your network-development teams to design the most efficient and effective head-endto-home systems possible. We construct a wide variety of residential, commercial, and MDU networks, securing easements and coordinating with municipalities as necessary. Our skilled crews work both overhead and underground to ensure the highest levels of quality, as well as on-time, on-budget completion of each project. When contracted, our maintenance crews perform both scheduled updates and emergency repairs, and are on call 24/7 to correct any service interruption as quickly as possible. Using our experience to shape the future of broadband. MasTec's expert broadband design, installation, and maintenance capabilities enable our customers to provide reliable cable and high-speed Internet service to millions of satisfied consumers across the nation. Construction and Installation ■ FTTX Deployment ■ Right-of-Way ■ OSP Cabling (Underground and Aerial) ■ Cabling/Plowing ■ Copper/Coax Cable Systems ■ Directional Boring ■ Joint Trench Systems ■ Trenching ■ MDU Installation ■ Micro Trench ■ Splicing and Testing ■ Rail Plow ■ Systems Integration ■ Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) ■ Feasibility Studies and Financial Projections ■ MAN WAN Deployment ■ Start-up and Testing Services ■ Wireless Mesh Networks Inside Plant Construction and Installation ■ Network Engineering ■ Data Center Installation Ongoing Maintenance ■ Emergency Restoration ■ Battery Load Tests and Replacement/Disposal ■ Pole Replacement and Removal ■ Shelter and HVAC Maintenance ■ Storm Remediation ■ Lock Changes ■ On-Call Construction Services ■ Electrical and Grounds Tests ■ Coax Sweeps Tests and Replacement ■ Grounds Maintenance ■ Generator Maintenance Design and Engineering Logistics Management Page 8 June 20, 2012 Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, FL 34108 RE: Naples Planned Community FTTP Project To Pelican Bay Foundation Board: At this time, we would like to request Plans, Specifications, and Construction Sheets for the above referenced project so that we may participate in the bidding process. Recent Work History of MP Nexlevel, LLC In the year 2011 MP Nexlevel, LLC has placed over 2,013 miles of fiber optic cable and installed over 10,000 service entrances on FFTH projects. The construction season featured over 145 major projects, with the following breakdown: 32‐RUS projects, 8‐Wind Farms, 20‐Telecommunications projects, 8‐Municipal Power projects, 5‐State Government, 7‐Educational Institute, & 17‐Security and CCTV systems. MP Nexlevel, LLC also maintains several yearly Locating, Maintenance and Service Agreements and many City Owned Projects. In the year 2010 MP Nexlevel, LLC has placed over 1350 miles of fiber optic cable and installed over 5,500 service entrances on FFTH projects. The construction season featured over 60 major projects, with half of them serving the phone companies directly. MP Nexlevel also featured 19 RUS projects, 1 Wind Farms, 8 projects for Power & Municipal Organizations, 9 Municipal power projects, 8 State Government and 1 educational Institute. MP Nexlevel, LLC also maintains several yearly Locating, Maintenance and Service Agreements and many City Owned projects. For 39 years, we've made MP Nexlevel a name of quality... a name that cable television, telephone, fiber optic and electrical companies rely on throughout the Midwest, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Iowa and North and South Dakota, Texas, and Arizona and more. From project to project, we consistently deliver the highest quality service based on our foundation of extensively trained employees and inventory of well‐maintained, state‐of‐the‐art facilities and equipment. The companies that have worked with MP continue to come back and this proves our mission of quality, safety, and customer satisfaction is a success job after job. Thank you for the opportunity to bid these projects. Sincerely, Robbi L. Pribyl Vice President of Operations June 21, 2012 Scott D. Bowles, P.E. President Spectrum Engineering 5524 North County Line Road Auburn, IN 46706 Dear Scott, On Trac, Incorporated is grateful for this opportunity to share information about our company and would be honored to partner with Pelican Bay. On Trac is a company based in the Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee. Officially launched in August of 2002, we began work on key FTTH projects within just a few months of incorporation. From our roots we are concerned about the rapid deployment of FTTH from rural underserved communities to densely populated metroplex areas. Our roots also lead us to execute projects and serve our customers with integrity, professionalism, responsibility, craftsmanship, and humility. On Trac is now in our 10th year in the FTTH industry. Over these years we have served thirteen (13) specific FTTH deployments and today our counter is peaking at just over 130,000 installations. Our customers have seen over 350,000 homes passed with robust fiber networks -‐ and On Trac has been there through most of these builds. Our experience spans both Active and Passive networks and with variances of customer specs on all phases/types of work. While it is true that On Trac falls within the realm of telecommunications contractors, our business model rejects the characteristics of contracting. First, we are not project-‐centered. We do not choose to live by short-‐term fiber projects and the mentality of show up, put up, cash in, and head home. In this we are the “un-‐contractor”. Our focus is long-‐term partnerships with key FTTH deployments to become “one of their own” and service their customers from the installation experience through the maturing of service or maintenance needs as the network peaks and beyond. Second, we are localized. On Trac prides itself on producing fully localized fiber installation systems -‐ local labor, local investments, local vendors, and local commitment. From the manager on down 6019 Ontario Circle Morristown, TN 37814 423.317.0009 to the technicians in the field, our goal is to hire/train locally and support local economies. When On Trac lands in a city we are there to stay -‐ to become part of the culture and contribute to a healthy community. To this point, at the conclusion of our 2011 fiscal year, 73% of all company revenue was invested in local wages, to local personnel at our various local operation centers. In one system, our Project Manager actually serves as Chamber of Commerce President and lobbies for economic development of the city. This “here to stay” model finds its financial support through consistent volume at a consistent location, whereas the conventional contractor lives off a financial model of “one project following another”. The contractor model feeds road crews who invest their earnings “back home” and the presence of that contractor has no benefit to the local community in which they exercise their work. On Trac was built through core convictions that led the founding families to the company name. Convictions such as the centrality of trust with clients, the honest need for competitive pay and reward, “uphill” accountability in listening to field personnel, and replicating excellence through consistency. These dynamics are echoed in our corporate name (On “TRAC”) which reflects a philosophy of Trust (T), Rewards (R), Accountability (A), and Consistency (C). Connectivity for the “end user” is not a side business for us but serves as our core -‐ it’s our DNA. On Trac is committed to the FTTH industry and to serving our customers with their best interests at heart. We bring experience, integrity, enthusiasm, honesty, and a proven record of leadership in fiber connectivity. Again, thanks for your consideration; we wish you all the best! Sincerely, Monte S. Hill Chief Operations Officer On Trac, Incorporated Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 6 Technology: Further Explained Fundamental to the understanding of global and national data growth is size as it expressed in Terabytes, Petabytes, Exabyte, and Zetabytes. A Megabyte is 1,000,000 (106 or six zeros following the numeral one) bytes. Then increasing in size are Giga (109), Tera (1012), Peta (1015), Exa (1018) and Zeta (1021). In other words, a Zetabyte is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes. The number is so large that it is difficult for us to wrap our mind around. Assuming our national debt today is $15.7 trillion, and each byte was a dollar, then a Zetabyte would be nearly 64 million times larger than our present national debt. The Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast provides an excellent understanding of the burgeoning demand for data. Several key indicators suggest data growth will continue to blossom. The Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast methodology rests on a combination of analyst projections, in-house estimates and forecasts, and direct data collection. The analyst projections for broadband connections, video subscribers, mobile connections, and Internet application adoption come from SNL Kagan, Ovum, Informa Telecoms & Media, Infonetics, IDC, Frost & Sullivan, Gartner, ABI, AMI, Strategy Analytics, Screen Digest, Parks Associates, Yankee Group, Dell’Oro Group, Synergy, comScore, Nielsen, and others. Upon this foundation are layered Cisco’s own estimates for application adoption, minutes of use, and kilobytes per minute. The adoption, usage, and bitrate assumptions are tied to fundamental enablers such as broadband speed and computing speed.1 All usage and traffic results are then validated using data shared with Cisco from service providers. Figure 1 shows the forecast methodology. The Compound Annual Growth Rate or CAGR is calculated for each slice of data and all values are expressed in Petabytes (1015). 1 Cisco Whitepaper, Visual Networking Index, Entering the Zetabyte Era, June 2011 1 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained The June 1 report goes on to summarize several very interesting statistics. Namely: Annual global IP traffic will reach the zetabyte threshold (966 exabytes or nearly 1 zetabyte) by the end of 2015. In 2015, global IP traffic will reach 966 exabytes per year or 80.5 exabytes per month. 2 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Global IP traffic has increased eightfold over the past 5 years, and will increase fourfold over the next 5 years. Overall, IP traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 32 percent from 2010 to 2015. In 2015, the gigabyte equivalent of all movies ever made will cross the global Internet every 5 minutes. The global Internet networks will deliver 7.5 petabytes every 5 minutes in 2015. The “terabyte club” will reach 6 million by 2015. In 2015, there will be 6 million Internet households worldwide generating over a terabyte per month in Internet traffic, up from just a few hundred thousand in 2010. There will be over 20 million households generating half a terabyte per month in 2015. The number of devices connected to IP networks will be twice as high as the global population in 2015. There will be two networked devices per capita in 2015, up from one networked device per capita in 2010. Driven in part by the increase in devices and the capabilities of those devices, IP traffic per capita will reach 11 gigabytes 3 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained per capita in 2015, up from 3 gigabytes per capita in 2010. A growing amount of Internet traffic is originating with non-PC devices. In 2010, only 3 percent of consumer Internet traffic originated with non-PC devices, but by 2015 the non-PC share of consumer Internet traffic will grow to 13 percent. PC-originated traffic will grow at a CAGR of 33 percent, while TVs, tablets, smartphones and machine-to-machine (M2M) modules will have traffic growth rates of 101 percent, 216 percent, 144 percent, and 258 percent, respectively. Traffic from wireless devices will exceed traffic from wired devices by 2015. In 2015, wired devices will account for 46 percent of IP traffic, while Wi-Fi and mobile devices will account for 54 percent of IP traffic. In 2010, wired devices accounted for the majority of IP traffic at 63 percent. 4 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Busy-hour traffic is growing more rapidly than average traffic. Busy-hour traffic will increase fivefold by 2015,while average traffic will increase fourfold. During an average hour in 2015, the traffic will be equivalent to 200 million people streaming a high-definition video continuously. During the busy hour in 2015, the traffic will be equivalent to 500 million people streaming a high-definition video continuously. Five major traffic milestones: ● 2012: Internet video will surpass 50 percent of consumer Internet traffic. ● 2012: The number of households generating over 1 terabyte per month of Internet traffic will reach 1 million. 5 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained ● 2014: One-fifth of Internet video traffic will come from TVs, handsets, and other non-PC devices. ● 2015: Internet traffic from wireless devices will surpass the volume of traffic from wired devices. ● 2015: The annual run rate of global IP traffic will reach the zettabyte threshold (966 exabytes). Three major traffic generator milestones: ● 2011: By the end of the year there will be more networked devices than people on earth. ● 2011: Digital screen surface area will reach 1 square foot per capita. ● 2015: There will be twice as many networked devices as people on earth. Global Internet Video Highlights Global Internet video traffic surpassed global peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in 2010, and by 2012 Internet video will account for over 50 percent of consumer Internet traffic. As anticipated, as of 2010 P2P traffic is no longer the largest Internet traffic type, for the first time in 10 years. Internet video was 40 percent of consumer 6 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Internet in 2010 and will reach 50 percent by year-end 2012. It would take over 5 years to watch the amount of video that will cross global IP networks every second in 2015. Every second, 1 million minutes of video content will cross the network in 2015. Internet video is now 40 percent of consumer Internet traffic, and will reach 61 percent by the end of 2015,not including the amount of video exchanged through P2P file sharing. The sum of all forms of video (TV, video on demand [VoD], Internet, and P2P) will continue to be approximately 90 percent of global consumer traffic by 2015. Internet video to TV tripled in 2010. Internet video to TV will continue to grow at a rapid pace, increasing 17-fold by 2015. Internet video to TV will be over 16 percent of consumer Internet video traffic in 2015, up from 7 percent in 2010. Video-on-demand traffic will triple by 2015. The amount of VoD traffic in 2015 will be equivalent to 3 billion DVDs per month.2 From Pelican Bay’s perspective, a member will likely use the following: 1Mb for phone (if using Internet based phone) 2MB for video conferencing 8MB-20MB for Web surfing. 20MB to download and view a High Definition movie In total, 43MB should provide adequate service today. The business model plans for 50M download and 50MB upload (synchronous) speed per member. Plans call for the network to be designed such that members could enjoy a fourfold increase in speed with a phone call to purchase more bandwidth from the Network Access Point and simple change in equipment provisioning. Pelican Bay is planning to install hardware that would allow for twentyfold increase to the member without significant upgrade costs. Technology Overview When determining the optimal set of technologies for broadband deployment, one must factor in a number of primary considerations. Top on the list is the ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future. Regardless of the technology selected, the objective to connect and communicate in Pelican Bay must offer a solution (or combination of solutions) that will achieve the economic development goals while improving the quality of life among its residents. It should be noted that an optimal system design may involve the use of several technologies and should be based upon the expressed needs of the community. However, regardless of the infrastructure selected, thorough due diligence is prudent to insure that the business case will support such capital expenditures. 2 Cisco Whitepaper, Visual Networking Index, Entering the Zetabyte Era, June 2011 7 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained The investment in new infrastructure must meet the determined measures, based on reasonable load growth progressions, to avoid costly pre-mature replacements and/or customer service/reliability problems. Undersized, inadequate or poor quality (including construction) facilities will not meet Pelican Bay’s stringent measures. It has to be assured that its projections, based on demand and load profiles as factored into a reliable modeling program, are accurate and sound. The premises network of today must have the flexibility to provide for current network needs while having the capability to facilitate the upgrades and extensions that may be required in the future, without re-cabling. The greater-bandwidth reach capability of optical fiber translates into a greater distance capability for any given data rate. Network reliability and security is of utmost importance in modern telecommunication systems. Network security must be guaranteed, as increasing levels of sensitive information are transferred over intranets and the Internet. FTTP provides for the applications necessary to offer this level of security without impacting the bandwidth delivery available per customer. As Pelican Bay has experienced, one of the biggest challenges facing communities today, once the decision to deploy some manner of broadband is decided, is choosing the optimal technology; the means to connect and communicate. For the obvious advantages, and the ability to differentiate the level and scalability of service, Pelican Bay has determined that FTTP is the choice for them. However, since much has been written and described as to the pros and cons of the various systems available today, due diligence would dictate that a cursory overview be provided on each of the technologies to consider. The following is a brief overview of these systems, including the advantages and limitations that were evaluated prior to selecting FTTP. The remainder portion of this section focuses specifically on FTTP and the various architectures offered through that delivery choice. 8 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) Of greatest significance is the premise that whatever transport technology is selected, it must be capable of adapting to the future demands placed on the broadband infrastructure. And, though the electronics hardware will undoubtedly require upgrades, the underlying determinant should be to invest in a transport medium that will not require “fork lifting” anytime over the next three decades. With this being the prime factor, there is really only one viable option to consider: Fiber To The Premises. FTTP offers the greatest scalability, reliability, and security. FTTP’s chief limitation has been initial cost. However, the cost to install and operate such a system is steadily decreasing while capabilities are increasing (“Moore’s Law”). When looking at a comprehensive community wide system, FTTP has the ability to offer the most viable set of services when compared to all other commercially available information infrastructures. A good FTTP system can offer a minimum of 4 phone lines, up to 400 channels of video and up to 100Mb of Internet Access. Additionally all services can be delivered with at least 99.999% reliability and employ state of the art security and encryption techniques, combined with unparalleled quality of service. Future scalability usually mitigates any marginal cost difference. Technology Determinants What actually is used to select an optimal technology for broadband deployment must factor in a number of primary considerations: The ability to meet the needs of the community, both today and in the future. Improve the quality of life among its residents. May involve the use of several technologies Based upon the expressed needs of the community Thorough due diligence is prudent to ensure that the business case will support such capital expenditures. According to Jupiter Research, a respected technology research house, “tech savvy” broadband consumers may demand as much as 84 Mb/s3 within the next four years. In its report titled, A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter’s researchers concluded that mainstream users may demand between 57 and 72 Mb/s. Much of this forecasted connectivity requirement is anticipated due to the real-time video applications and related. Comparatively, the average broadband user will be demanding between 2.2 Mb/s – 7.8 Mb/s. In January 2005, Verizon announced its plans to overbuild its Fort Wayne, Indiana area market with complete fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP). Key among the factors stated by both Gale Given, Verizon Great Lakes Region President and Suri Surinder, Verizon North Central Market Area President was the combination of network reliability, speed 3 A Portrait of the Wireless Digital Home in 2009, Jupiter Research published findings reported by Internetweek on November 4, 2004, available at www.internetweek.com. 9 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained and limitless potential for voice, data and video connections4. Equally important is fiber’s workability in inclement weather and provisioning for installations and repairs. In its May 2004 Industry Focus report, Deutsche Bank’s Global Equity Research group summed up its findings of the future in telecommunications infrastructure by stating, “Fiber will be the access medium for the next century.” 5 Among the prime benefits offered by a FTTP deployment, Deutsche Bank found: o Longevity-longer life expectancy. Conservative estimates place fiber’s life expectancy at 100 years as compared with 25-30 for copper and coaxial cable. o Less active components in the loop. Reduces issues with latency, down time and technology refresh expenses. o Scalability. Electronics can be replaced, without impacting the fiber infrastructure or requiring replacement/overbuild once sufficient fiber is installed. Allows flexible and targeted technology refresh to areas and/or clients demanding more bandwidth. Deutsche Bank also evaluated the benefits of taking just FTTC (Fiber to the Curb). They found that this manner of construction would require a significant level of investment in existing legacy copper circuits and that the active electronics within the local loop would increase significantly. All this to provide VDSL service with the potential to reach 40 Mb/s (under optimal conditions), which Deutsche Bank (and others) expect to be insufficient within the next five years. In the 14 years from 1994 to 2008, the Ethernet revolution drove the progressive development of higher bandwidth Ethernet standards from 10 Mb/s to 10 Gb/s. Applications are the driving force behind these demands. With HDTV growing as the most recent entry as the “killer App” (requiring 19 Mbps in its native format) delivery multiple streams of this content to the subscriber brings with it a whole new set of issues for copper based facilities. Significant capital investment will be required of operators to support “whole house TV” expectations of today’s customer. Despite numerous upgrades to copper cables, fiber bandwidth and reach capability have always remained significantly ahead of copper. Significant advancement in video channel compression (known as MPEG 4) is reducing the practical bandwidth of a high definition channel. This will accommodate HDTV over traditional HFC and copper plant (compressing it down to 11 Mb from 19 Mb), but it comes at a high price. FTTP allows the video service provider to forgo an expensive wholesale upgrade (of all channels to MPEG 4) while not sacrificing any ability to offer full HDTV channel line-ups. HFC is largely the closest competition to FTTP. However, in a best case scenario each 870 MHz HFC Node could be upgraded to 1GHz and therefore would be capable of carrying 156Mbps over four bonded channels with the bandwidth of 38 Mbps per channel under laboratory conditions. Many MSOs limit the bandwidth output to 100Mbps shared between all users on a given node. This shared bandwidth would be delivered to a group of homes typically between 200 and 2000 by current designs. In Pelican Bay’s case, 100Mbps would be shared by 360 subscribers. This sharing during busy season often leads to slower experience for users. To increase speeds per 4 Verizon to Create 850 Jobs, Fiber Optic Service in Fort Wayne Area, reported January 19, 2005 by Inside Indiana Business with Gerry Dick, available at www.insideindianabusiness.com 5 FTTP-No Other Way to Entertain, Deutsche Bank Industry Focus Report for the Wireline Industry, produced by Victor Shvets, Nigel Coe, CFA, and Andrew Kieley, CFA, published May 13, 2004. 10 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained customer, HFC networks will need to deploy more fiber deeper into the network and increase the bandwidth of amplifiers to meet increased demand. Presently, Pelican Bay has approximately 18 nodes, which indicates that the node size is at roughly 360 subscribers. As a hypothetical example; if all users have equal access and are sharing the system at the same time, uniformly and continuously, each would experience Therefore Pelican Bay members could realize rates between 0.27Mbps down and 0.13Mbps up. Thankfully, not all users access the system at precisely the same time and moist internet traffic is intermittent by nature. However, internet based video is about to change the landscape forever. By comparison, FTTP offers this 5.1 Gpbs capability for allocation exclusively to video delivery, a second optical wavelength can provide up to 2.5 Gbps of Internet, phone, plus a myriad of other IP applications to a group of homes typically between 16 or as many as 64 by current designs. This equates to 156 Mbps and 78 Mbps respectively per subscriber; or more than a five hundred fold improvement in performance when using FTTP. Domestic FTTP Although FTTP has been around in several forms for several years, the actual domestic number of homes connected has been small: 5,500 in 2001 and 22,500 by September 2002. Note that by September 2002 only 72,100 homes had been passed. By 2004 the number of homes passed was 970,000 having approximately 146,500 subscribers. This was achieved in large part to a significant effort on the part of Verizon Communication commitment to pass 3 million homes in the next two years. The growth continues and as of March, 2012, 22.4 million homes had been passed, with more than 7 million connected. A common misconception about North American FTTP is that Verizon is the only real company providing FTTP. While Verizon is indeed the largest provider, by a very large margin, there is actually a very long tail of providers. Verizon has 2.05 million homes connected as of March 30, 2008. Verizon’s announcement that it will slow its FTTH deployments has been offset by smaller carriers and municipalities, many of whom will scale their efforts as broadband stimulus money kicks in. 11 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained General Discussion on FTTP Architectures In the arena of FTTP architectures, two distinct network technologies have emerged; these are GEM (GPON Encapsulation Mode) based and Ethernet based (EPON and Active). The Ethernet standard was the basis for developing the IP (internet protocol) used in the development of the World Wide Web. While the Ethernet transmission protocol and the ATM transmission protocols are the two primary methods of data transmission used in the world today, GPON is quickly becoming a widely accepted and strong contender for FTTP space replacing the ATM based BPON in the United States. Ethernet companies claim that ATM has died in the local access market (local loop) while ATM companies claim their product better supports QoS (quality of service) and Service Level Agreements (SLA’s). The claims of all groups have driven the other to ensure that their network solutions provide the full spectrum of: multi-service delivery; inter-connectivity; compliance to existing communications standards and protocols; network and equipment inter-operability. ATM ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) was first developed as an efficient means to transmit data over networks originally designed to carry voice signals. Voice transmission over telephony networks uses TDM (time division multiplexing). In this scheme each user is assigned a time slot and no other user is allowed access to that slot. The problem is that when that time slot becomes available and it is empty, the transmission is sent anyway thus wasting the bandwidth. With ATM only time slots containing information are transmitted or received. Empty time slots are passed over or dismissed. ATM data is transmitted in fixed-length 53 byte cells (with 48 byte payload and 5 byte overhead) as specified by the ATM protocol. The effect of the ATM cell structure on IP/Ethernet based data protocols is covered later in this document. An ATM network is made up of an ATM switch and ATM endpoints. An ATM switch is responsible for cell transit through an ATM network. The job of an ATM switch is well defined: It accepts the incoming cell from an ATM endpoint or another ATM switch. It then reads and updates the cell header information and quickly switches the cell to an output interface toward its destination. An ATM endpoint (or end system) contains an ATM network interface adapter. Examples of ATM endpoints are workstations, routers, digital service units (DSUs), LAN switches, and video coder-decoders (CODECs). All of the major telephony companies use ATM technology to a greater or lesser degree for the transmission of data over their networks. Most of the major telephony equipment vendors manufacture ATM or ATM compatible equipment. As digital transmission became ubiquitous in telephony networks, ATM was adapted to carry voice as well as data. With the advent of the FSAN6 initiative, the first FTTP models used ATM technology because it was well understood and the equipment was readily available. Ethernet Both EPON and ATM system solutions are based on the Ethernet protocol for data networking. There are several LAN technologies in use today, but Ethernet is by far the most popular. Industry estimates indicate that as of 1994 over 40 million Ethernet nodes had been installed worldwide. The widespread popularity of Ethernet ensures that there 6 The FSAN committee is made up of 16 of the biggest telecommunications equipment vendors and carriers. 12 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained is a large market for Ethernet equipment, which also helps keep the technology competitively priced. In late 1972 Xerox developed the first experimental Ethernet system to interconnect the Xerox Alto, a personal workstation with a graphical user interface. The experimental Ethernet was used to link Altos to one another, and to servers and laser printers. From the time of the first Ethernet standard, the specifications and the rights to build Ethernet technology have been made easily available to anyone. This openness, combined with the ease of use and robustness of the Ethernet system, resulted in a large Ethernet market and is another reason Ethernet is so widely implemented in the computer industry. Formal specifications for Ethernet were published in 1980 by a multi-vendor consortium that created the DEC-Intel-Xerox (DIX) standard. This effort turned the experimental Ethernet into an open, production-quality Ethernet system that operates at 10 Mbps. Ethernet technology was then adopted for standardization by the LAN standards committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802). The IEEE standard was first published in 1985, with the formal title of "IEEE 802.3 Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications." The International Organization has since adopted the IEEE standard for Standardization (ISO), which makes it a worldwide networking standard. The IEEE standard provides an "Ethernet like" system based on the original DIX Ethernet technology. All Ethernet equipment since 1985 is built according to the IEEE 802.3 standard. The 802.3 standard is periodically updated to include new technology. Since 1985 the standard has grown to include new media systems for 10/100 Mbps and Gigabit Fast Ethernet. The Ethernet system consists of three basic elements: The physical medium used to carry Ethernet signals between data devices (this physical medium can be coaxial cable, twisted pair copper wire, radio waves or fiber optic cable). A set of medium access control rules embedded in each Ethernet interface that allow multiple computers to fairly arbitrate access to the shared Ethernet channel. An Ethernet frame that consists of a standardized set of bits used to carry data over the system. The vast majority of computer and data device vendors today equip their products with 10/100 Mbps Ethernet attachments, making it possible to link all manner of computers with an Ethernet LAN. The ability to link a wide range of computers using a vendorneutral network technology is an essential feature for today's LANs. Most LANs must support a wide variety of computers purchased from different vendors, which requires a high degree of network interoperability of the sort that Ethernet provides. Growth of the World Wide Web, the Internet, has made Ethernet the single most dominant platform for data. In the telephony industry there has been a major move to manufacture Ethernet interfaces for all current voice delivery transport and switch technology. The reason for this is that technologies based on Ethernet are more cost effective, more prevalent and equally reliable to those of ATM. All the major telephony equipment vendors now provide Ethernet compliant transport and switch technology in their product lines. 13 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained The advent of VoIP and IP video technology based on Ethernet have taken FTTP into a realm where, for the first time, fully convergent media, voice, video and data services can be offered to commercial and residential customers over one fully integrated platform. Only FTTP technologies that are Ethernet based can honestly make this claim. ATM vs. Ethernet The key difference between Ethernet and ATM FTTP systems is that in Ethernet based networks data is transmitted in variable-length packets of up to 1,518 bytes according to the IEEE 802.3 protocol for Ethernet, whereas in ATM networks data is transmitted in fixed-length 53 byte cells divided into a 48 byte payload and 5 byte overhead as specified by the ATM protocol. The ATM format does not allow efficient transmission of traffic formatted according to the Internet protocol (IP). The Internet protocol calls for data to be segmented into variable-length packets of up to 65,535 bytes. For an ATM system to carry IP traffic the packets must be broken into 48 byte segments with a 5byte header attached to each one. This process is time consuming and complicated and adds additional cost to the OLT and ONTs. Moreover, 5 bytes of bandwidth (10%) are wasted for every 48-byte segment creating an overhead that is commonly referred to as the “ATM cell tax”. The variable length of the Ethernet packet mates well with the variable length of the IP packet The major advantage of Ethernet over ATM systems is in transmission of streaming or IP video. The next generation of video delivery is based on the IP protocol. As stated earlier in this document, ATM systems are incapable of supporting either the streaming content of the video itself or the protocols (IGMP snooping) required to manage channel selection or distribute the video stream. At the present time there are no known ATM based protocols in existence or in development that will allow, manage or distribute IP video, DSS, or IP multicast video. Security has been a hot area in ATM based FTTP architectures. BPON security is tricky because any OLT can read any cell. Like the voice network, there's no inherent security mechanism to prevent intrusion. However, the current BPON specification does provide some rudimentary form of security, called scrambling. Each cell's payload runs through encryption algorithms that mix up (or “scrambles”) the data using a 24-bit encryption key. The shortness of the encryption key makes it very weak (even 40-bit keys are considered weak), (128 bit) but changing the encryption key's key on the fly improves the security somewhat. In Ethernet based systems the security of data on a sub-network uses the same methods and standards that have been established for Ethernet data network encryption and is therefore not an issue. While it is true that development of ATM based FTTP solutions started earlier that Ethernet based solutions, market trends in several industries; telephony, entertainment, data and FTTP are moving the focus away from ATM and towards Ethernet. Whatever early advantages ATM had over Ethernet in QoS and SLA capabilities have, in the past year, evaporated in the face of fully integrated, feature rich ACTIVE and EPON system solutions. ATM and other data networking technologies revolve around core-to-core exchange of information. They are not specifically designed to facilitate information exchange at the user level, as is Ethernet. 14 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained As stated earlier ATM based solution providers claim that their systems better support QoS end to end. This claim is at best hollow as Ethernet also fully supports end-to-end QoS. The benefits of ATM simply do not outweigh its significant inadequacies in bandwidth delivery, high price tags, excessive processing power required to management and provision the network, multiple levels of emulation, difficulty of deployment and lack of support for IP based technological advances. While research and development continue into new and more streamlined Ethernet delivery technologies, ATM R&D has stagnated. To our knowledge, there is little or no new research devoted to advancing ATM, in fact some equipment vendors have dropped their ATM equipment lines altogether. In the Long Haul telephony carrier world every major equipment manufacturer offers native data transport products based on GigE Fast Ethernet. There is no such comparable offering for ATM. This is a telling point. According to Merrill Lynch & Co Global Securities Research and Economics Group in a paper entitled “Passive Optical Networks Sharing the Fiber” written on May 15th 2001, “ATM has clearly died as a access technology, taken over by Gigabit Ethernet, and in the core by IP/MPLS routers. PONs (FTTP) is an access technology, not a networking one. Ethernet is scalable from 10 Mbps to 10 Gbps with probably the best price/performance.” In short, this is the dilemma facing ATM. Fiber to the home is first and foremost all about access: access to content and access to the “network”. Ethernet is an access technology that meshes with FTTP while ATM is a network technology that requires a very large hammer to shape it for the access niche. While ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers) may prefer BPON and may in fact deploy it, content providers, MSOs, ELECs and municipalities will certainly prefer the Ethernet based technologies for their simplicity, scalability, and performance and converged content capability. Quality of Service (QOS) This section of the document will examine and define the QoS, prioritization and management capabilities of the Transport and Interface Layers individually and in conjunction. The network must be flexible enough to meet the full range of IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and IEEE standards based provider and customer requirements in this arena. Logic dictates that some data is more important than others. Therefore management of the transport and distribution of converged content requires the prioritization of the different types of traffic. The cities network must be capable of allowing data types to be prioritized according to their relative importance to the end user. Traffic prioritization in residential and commercial or business applications may be different due to the nature of the traffic being handled. For both residential and business applications voice traffic will always have the highest priority. While some traffic prioritization may vary according to the needs of the subscriber, generically traffic will be prioritized as follows: voice will receive the highest priority with video second and data third. QoS (quality of service) refers to the capability of a network to provide better service to selected network traffic over various technologies, including Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Ethernet and 802.1 networks, SONET, and IP-routed networks that may use any or all of these underlying technologies. End-to-end QoS opens the door for Ethernet based networks to handle applications that native Ethernet handles 15 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained poorly, such as latency-sensitive applications like video conferencing and telephony (IP and TDM), and applications that require guaranteed levels of bandwidth, including most business networking applications. The primary goal of QoS is to provide priority including dedicated bandwidth, controlled jitter and latency (required by some real-time and interactive traffic), and improved loss characteristics. Also important is making sure that providing priority for one or more traffic flows does not make other flows fail. QoS technologies provide the elemental building blocks used for applications in FTTP networks. By design and in practice, Ethernet is an access technology. By definition, FTTP networks, such as the network studied for Pelican Bay, are access networks. As such the networking technology chosen, must supply the most complete and fully functional security and prioritization methods available. The ATM Traffic Management Specification Version 4.1 (AF-TM-0121.000) presents a set of generic functions that enable ATM networks to manage and control traffic and congestion. In an ATM network, Connection Admission Control (CAC) determines the admissibility of connections. By definition, regulation of connections cannot be accommodated within a connectionless IP/Ethernet architecture. To overcome this, Ethernet based networks must have the ability to assign traffic classes within their routing/switching engines to provide analogous service functionality. Moreover, the capability to natively classify based on Ethernet and the IP protocol stack enables the Ethernet solution to be significantly more effective than ATM in the access arena. The FTTP manufacturing market currently consists of a combination of multiplexing options, fiber configurations and traffic protocols. Six companies provide four distinctly different approaches to bring fiber to the home. A discussion of the architectures, protocols and optical fiber configurations is provided herein. The discussion is not intended to provide exhaustive detail, but offer enough detail for a solid indoctrination into the fundamentals surrounding FTTP. It is important to note that the general acceptance of the technology is relatively new and hence has not provided the public with a clear manufacturing winner. FTTP is beyond the bleeding edge but remains on the leading edge. Short of several more years and a subset of clear winners, each manufacturer’s products remain somewhat proprietary. The architectures and protocols used can be summarized as five broad categories: BPON, GPON, EPON, Active, Hybrid Active/EPON. To date, the battle appears to be narrowing to two architectures: EPON and GPON. In summary, EPON has the largest world market share; GPON enjoys the largest U.S. market share. EPON is based on IEEE standards; a standards body made up of engineers and manufacturers with a history of providing backward compatibility. MSO’s, ISP’s, Municipals, and some rural telephone companies have gravitated to this offering. Development into the next generation 10Gbps EPON product standard is well underway. 10Gb products are expected to be generally available by late 2010. The standard is backward compatible with 1Gb and 100Gb and 10Gb products. This eliminates expensive replacement of the ONT’s at the subscriber. 16 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained GPON is based on the ITU standards from FSAN which is made up of consumers; namely the largest telephone companies in the world -- Verizon, AT&T to some degree, and some rural telephone companies. The IEEE and ITU met together for the first time in Geneva Switzerland on June 19th and 20th, 2008 to discuss combining standards for more ubiquitous interoperability. Those in attendance surmise that standards consensus will likely be limited to layers 1 and 2. What is clear however, is that GPON’s 10G WDM project is now dead and EPON has a clear 18 month advantage. It should also be noted that EPON in many respects is natively easier to manage than GPON and requires fewer hardware components. Some manufacturers have developed fairly comprehensive management platforms to rise above this short coming. As of this writing, GPON is about 10% more expensive to deploy when compared to EPON. PON Architectures Active vs. PON based Networks The two major components of any network design are the outside plant (the fiber optic cable and ancillary support equipment) and the inside plant (the equipment used to light the fiber). The outside plant is the path down which the information will flow from service provider to end-user. The outside plant is the permanent portion of the network. Much like a road it is always there. What travels down it may take many forms that change over time, but the road remains the same. The inside plant channels the content down that road. It determines the amount of content and to whom it is delivered. Networks are made up of an aggregation of several sub-networks. The amount of content delivered to any one end user on the network is determined by the amount of available bandwidth and the degree to which the sub-networks are split. The greater the split, the less bandwidth is available to the end user and the less equipment required. The smaller the split the greater the bandwidth to each end user and the greater the amount of inside and outside plant equipment required. To be economically viable a network must balance bandwidth requirements to the end user against the capital cost of building the network. PONs (passive optical networks) typically do not have active components from the point of signal delivery to the point of signal receipt. BPON, EPON and GPON systems are all considered to be passive network architectures. Figure 6 below is a simplified PON diagram. 17 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Figure 6 S a te llite S e rv ic e D e liv e ry o v e r P O N T e le p h o n e V id e o F ib e r O p tic C a b le T ra n sm is s io n ra te : D a ta O LT ONU APON: 1 5 5 ,2 0 4 o r 6 2 2 M b p s EPON: 1 0 0 M b p s o r 1 ,0 0 0 M b p s C o m p u te r Set Top Box V o ic e T e le v is io n As can be seen in Figure 7, voice, video and data are fed into the Optical Line Terminal (OLT). These feeds are then transmitted down the fiber optic cable to the ONT (optical network terminal) located in or on the side of the home or business. Delivering up to 1,000 Mbps (1 Gbps) to a single home is neither desirable nor economically feasible. Therefore to scale the network for the most efficient operation, an optical splitter is added between the OLT and the ONT. This allows the available PON bandwidth to be shared between several users. Figure 7 Satellite Shared Bandwidth over PON ONU ONU ONU Passive Splitter Vid eo ONU Fiber Optic Cable ONU Transmission rate: Data OLT APON: 155, 204 or 622Mbps EPON: 100 Mbps or 1,000 Mbps ONU ONU Voice ONU ONU ONU The term passive is used to describe this type of network because the splitter itself is not a powered device. Split ratios can vary as needed over PON network, but the most commonly used for service delivery in a residential FTTP application are 1:16 and 1:32. 18 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Optically, between the OLT and the ONT, both the BPON and the EPON typically use CWDM (coarse wave division multiplexing) to transmit and receive signals down a single fiber. The downstream voice and data (OLT to ONT) signal path typically operates on the 1490nm wavelength. The upstream (ONT to OLT) signal path typically operates on the 1310nm wavelength. RF video traffic downstream (OLT to ONT) signal path typically operates on the 1550nm wavelength . By using different wavelengths of light for the downstream and upstream signal paths, PONs are able to use a single fiber. The third system, Active, is very similar in overall design to BPON and EPON with two exceptions. The first is that the split of the signal is achieved using an optical switch located as close to the subscriber as is possible. The second is that the Active system, uses a single fiber for downstream and another for upstream signal delivery. Both directions use the same wavelength of light (typically 1310nm). Figure 8 below illustrates service delivery on the Active system. Figure 8 Typical Active Network Satellite ONU ONU ONU Video ONU Downstream Fiber Upstream Fiber Data OLT ONU Optical Switch Transmission rate: Active: 100 Mbps or 1,000 Mbps ONU ONU Voice ONU ONU ONU Subscriber bandwidth distribution (analogous to the split ration of a PON) differs in the Active system. Depending on the type and network configuration of the optical switch, bandwidth distribution can be varied in any way that fits network requirements. With Active systems it is misleading to speak of typical split ratios, but in most common residential scenarios for FTTP applications splits of 1:32 or 1:64 would perhaps be the most used. The split ratio, or bandwidth distribution ratio in its simplest terms is the number of ONT’s fed off a single OLT. As stated earlier, the amount of bandwidth delivered to each end 19 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained user (and therefore the capital cost of the network) is determined by this ratio. This split size also determines the services that can be delivered because service directly equates to bandwidth. Table 2 shows the bandwidth available to subscribers as a function of split ratio based on network type. For the purpose of illustration, consider the transmission rates as packages to be divided (split) and delivered to the end users. Table 1 GPON EPON BPON 1.244 Gbits/sec 622 Mbits/sec 2.488 Gbits/sec 56% 70% 93% 697 Mbits/sec 435 Mbits/sec 2300 Mbits/sec Limited and not standardized. All services over IP / Ethernet. Over ATM Native and standardized (using a variant of GFP) or ATM. 32 32 32/64/128 20 km 20 km 20km AES Churning AES None None Standardized at 3 levels None Standardized Sub 50-ms fiber protection Standardized Standardized Standardized Raw capacity Efficiency (usable bandwidth after overhead) Revenue bandwidth (usable bandwidth) TDM transport method Number of ONTs (homes or businesses) Max. PON length Security encryption Power leveling Protection cuts/noise against fiber Third wavelength for video The Different PONs Although PON technology has been available since the mid-1990s, it has only been over the last few years that the standards have matured and commercial PONs have been implemented. The original standard for APON, also known as BPON, is characterized by an ATM architecture ratified by the ITU in the mid-1990s. BPON supports voice and data using an ATM encapsulation mode, where all services are transported over the PON using ATM. The most recent standard is the GPON standard, also ratified by the ITU. It offers direct support of TDM and Ethernet traffic in their native formats or via an optional ATM encapsulation method. GPON also offers the bandwidth service providers require for next-generation services. There are some key differences among what each of these PON standards will offer a service provider. These differences are shown in the Table above. In particular, these 20 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained differences affect IP service deployment, bandwidth, efficiency, and split ratio differences. IP Service Deployment: As shown in the table, there is a vast difference among the three options in how each PON protocol supports legacy and emerging IP services. APON/BPON uses an ATM layer for its transport of services, which is an inefficient use of network protocols. Therefore, while BPON networks have been useful in supporting legacy services, they are likely not the best choice for emerging IP services better served with more efficient protocol support and higher speeds. EPON uses the Ethernet protocol over a Passive Optical Network. EPONs inherently support all IP networks today through their use of Ethernet protocols. They are therefore positioned for all-IP service networks. Their support for legacy services (i.e., POTS, T1, E1, etc.), however, requires circuit-emulation over Ethernet services using a protocol called Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge or PWE3. Third party devices are required to provide legacy voice services, thereby increasing the cost to serve. GPONs are based on providers' requirements as defined within the FSAN organization (www.fsanweb.org) and the ITU, and therefore may be best aligned with providers' desires for legacy and IP support. As shown in the table, GPONs support legacy services such as T1/E1 in their native formats through re-use of SONET's GFP protocol, reclassified as GEM in the GPON standard. GPON also fully supports all Ethernet protocols as well as VLANs, quality and class of service, IMGP, and other Layer 2+ mechanisms for full support of emerging IP services. This mix of legacy and IP services support gives providers a migration path to all-IP services by allowing today's networks to be deployed with legacy services (POTS, T1, E1, analog video) yet ensuring a seamless migration to all-IP services. For today's provider, GPON offers the best of all worlds -- a mixture of legacy and IP services as well as a very efficient all IP network. Bandwidth and bandwidth efficiency: A prime factor for a carrier analyzing the merit of a PON is the overall bandwidth available for services sold to customers. This available bandwidth can also be termed as the "revenue bits" of the network. Revenue bits are derived from the overall network bandwidth with the protocol overhead or tax subtracted from it. While EPON supports 1.25 Gbits/sec up and downstream today with 10Gbits/sec up and downstream in development, GPON works at upstream speeds of 1.244 Gbits/sec and downstream speeds of 2.488 Gbits/sec. Moreover, when the bandwidth utilization is taken into account, EPON performance becomes even worse. With only about 60% efficiency, EPON's revenue bandwidth is limited to 697 Mbits/sec while GPON, with its bandwidth utilization, can allow the service provider to allocate about 2300 Mbits/sec. PONs for fiber to the home and business are emerging as a clear winner with major carriers around the world for delivering voice, video, and data services. As service providers seek elegant ways to deploy new IP services, only EPON and GPON deliver on the promise of an economical network for the delivery of these services while also offering a migration path from today's legacy network to an all-IP architecture. 21 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Much is being written these days about voice over IP (VoIP), IPTV, video-on-demand over the Internet, and other emerging applications that are currently, or will be, deployed in service provider networks. It would appear that EoIP or Everything over IP is the current industry trend. There is little debate about the market's demand for these services or the likelihood of these services being provided. The impact of companies like Vonage is indicative of early market demand and acceptance. The recent exploratory tenders by major providers for video and television services over IP are a further indicator of major deployments, as providers seek new revenue streams to both increase top-line revenue to combat ever-tightening profits in the consumer market, as well as decrease customer churn through "sticky" applications like television and next-generation entertainment services. While there is little doubt IP-based services and the all-IP network are coming, questions about the correct infrastructure, especially on the access network, remain. xDSL, passive optical networks (PONs), and point-to-point fiber networks all have various pros and cons. The focus on the various flavors of PON, will show that of the varieties available in the market today, EPON and GPON offer very robust migration paths service providers seek for today's network as well as the bandwidth required to deliver on the promise of these new services. PONs in general offers a number of advantages over legacy infrastructures: PONs by definition are passive, meaning they do not require traditional active components between the central office and customer premises. These active components generally require power to operate and are therefore more expensive to initially deploy (i.e., more capital expenses, capex) and also more expensive to maintain in the outside plant (i.e., more operating expenses, opex). PONs are also by definition usually shared among numerous users, allowing the capital costs of trenching or pulling a single fiber from the central office to the customers to be shared among many users, thereby improving the return on investment (ROI) on capex. Security and bandwidth-sharing mechanisms inherent in the PON protocols ensure that the sharing of the fiber is secure and transparent to the users. Because a single high-speed optical interface in the central office is now capable of driving fiber-based services to multiple customers, the footprint requirements in the central office for a similar number of customers is much lower compared with other solutions involving point-to-point fibers to each customer. PONs promise to support both legacy services (POTS, analog video) and broadband services (VoIP, digital video over IP, IPTV, etc). PONs support the sharing of one common access network (physical and protocols) for all residential customers (for POTS, video, and data services) and many business customers (for T1/E1 and Ethernet services), therefore reducing the number of discrete overlay access networks necessary to provide services to each group. 22 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained These advantages have resulted in a significant increase in the adoption of PON as an access architecture over the last three years, with major deployments in Asia and the USA, in particular among NTT and the RBOCs. GEM over GPON Despite the predictions of TDM services' rapid demise due to the emergence of VoIPbased services, and the replacement of TDM-infrastructure with packet-based infrastructure, TDM services have proven very resilient. This is in part due to the robustness and functionality of TDM-based end user equipment, which is the result of decades of development and deployment of T1/E1. In fact, more than $25 billion worth of TDM services are sold every year worldwide to businesses of all sizes for leased-line or network-access applications. T1/E1 services still account for a substantial amount of operator revenue in 2005, and they will continue to do so for many years to come. Therefore, it is important that new access technologies such as gigabit passive optical networking (GPON) be capable of delivering TDM services. GPON is a low-cost, highperformance broadband fiber optic technology that delivers the processing power needed for applications such as HDTV, VoIP and IPTV (see Figure 1). GPON delivers unprecedented high bit rate support of up to 2.488 Gbit/s while enabling the transport of multiple services, specifically data and TDM, in native formats and with extremely high efficiency. In January 2003, GPON standards were ratified by the ITU-T and are known as ITU-T Recommendations G.984.1, G.984.2 and G.984.3. Figure 1 GPON Access An upswing of GPON deployment is rapidly approaching. Current forecasts predict that approximately 12.5 million GPON links will be deployed by 2008. Experts estimate that approximately 1 million of those links will be used to deliver TDM services. To manage this key requirement for GPON's support of TDM, the Full Service Access 23 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Network (FSAN) Group, a forum of operators and vendors that worked to standardize GPON in ITU-T G.984, made TDM service transport a central element of the FSAN standard. There are currently two alternatives for delivering TDM services over GPON. The first appears in ITU-T G.984, which defines a solution for transporting TDM over GPON using GPON Encapsulation Method (GEM). This mode is commonly referred to as native TDM over GPON Encapsulation Method, or as TDM over GEM (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Native TDM over GPON encapsulation method, or, TDM over GEM Native TDM over GEM provides transport of unstructured TDM in the GPON network from the optical line termination (OLT) to the optical network unit (ONT). The TDM network is terminated at the OLT, and TDM circuits are recreated at the ONT. Native TDM over GEM supports only the GPON part of the path traversed by the TDM service. A TDM service needs to be delivered to the OLT, and encapsulated using GEM for transport over the GPON network before it is finally delivered to the ONT. TDM services arrive through a TDM cross-connect into the OLT. Within the OLT, a TDM backplane carries the traffic onto dedicated TDM circuitry off of the OLT line card, where it is encapsulated into GEM. With the adoption of IP and packet-based infrastructure as a ubiquitous unifying network, a second approach to delivering TDM services over packet networks is now feasible. This approach makes fewer assumptions about the underlying properties of the physical transport and is known as circuit emulation service. CES CES is a straightforward tunneling technology derived from the pseudo-wire approach developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Pseudo-Wire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) working group. Pseudo-wire was developed to support transport of non-Ethernet/IP traffic such as T1/E1, ATM and frame relay across packet networks. CES, specifically, is the technology used for transporting TDM and synchronization over Ethernet, IP and MPLS networks. First made available to the market in 1998, CES was not standardized until the IETF made it part of the standardization efforts of the PWE3 working group. The work done in PWE3 formed the basis for parallel efforts in ITU-T, the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) 24 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained and the MPLS Forum – all of which ratified standards and specifications for CES in 2004. Currently, CES comprises two modes – the first is structure-agnostic and is referred to as Structure Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP). The second mode supports structured and fractional T1/E1 services and is referred to as CES over Packet Switched Networks (CESoPSN). The IETF is finalizing a third mode, referred to as circuit emulation over packet (CEP), to be used for transporting high rate TDM traffic including STM-1/OC-3. CES already has been implemented in network solutions in metro Ethernet, DOCSIS hybrid fiber coax (HFC) and fixed wireless applications worldwide. It has gained industrywide acceptance as a key element in the evolution of Ethernet, IP and MPLS networking infrastructure and the convergence of voice and data. CES works by taking a TDM stream at the ingress to the packet network link, cutting it up into segments referred to as payloads. The relevant packet header (Ethernet, IP and/or MPLS) is added to each payload before it is transmitted over the packet network. At the far end of the packet link (the egress), the CES interworking function receives the incoming packets with the TDM payload, removes the headers, reassembles them in the correct sequence and releases the reconstructed TDM stream to the TDM user equipment connected to the CES-based device. CES also provides the ability to deliver the TDM clock over the packet network along with the TDM circuit to ensure synchronization of TDM equipment at both ends of the packet link according to G.823/G.824 jitter/wander standards. The basic element of CES implementations, the pseudo-wire, functions as a point-topoint connection. CES implementations supporting multiple simultaneous pseudo-wires can then operate in multipoint (star) and multipoint-to-multipoint (mesh) topologies. CES sessions are available all the time and in the event of a link failure, are recreated extremely quickly. CES over GPON CES over GPON(CESoGPON) refers to the overlay of TDM services over a GPON. To understand how CES is used in conjunction with GPON, it is useful to consider a trivial example of using CES. For example, Figure 3 shows a T1/E1 running across a standard Ethernet switch connecting a PBX via standard T1/E1 interfaces to a CES gateway. In turn, the gateway is connected to the switch over standard CAT5 Ethernet cabling on both sides of the switch. In this implementation, CES can be used to transport standard telephony across an Ethernet switch. No special configuration of the network is required, nor is there a need for any additional gateways. There will also be no degradation in the quality of the voice experienced by the PBX users. 25 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Figure 3 Using CES to transport standard telephony across an Ethernet switch To create CESoGPON, all an operator needs to do is simply replace the switch with a GPON access network (see Figure 4). Figure 4 CESoGPON The next step is examining how CESoGPON is implemented in a real GPON application. On the ONT subscriber premises side, CES interworking functionality is integrated inside the ONT. The CES function directly interfaces with the G.984 MAC in the ONT via a standard Fast Ethernet or GigE interface. On the central office side, CES interworking functions can be integrated either within the OLT, or located externally to the OLT in a separate device. When collocated outside the OLT, the CES gateway can be connected directly to the OLT if there is a TDM backhaul link immediately available to the OLT. Alternatively, the CES gateway can be located remotely from the OLT on the far side of a packet backhaul link such as Metro Ethernet. If the CES interworking is integrated inside the OLT, it can be added as a pluggable card that plugs into an Ethernet backplane (see Figure 5). 26 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Figure 5 CESoGPON plug-in modules This integrated CES function in the OLT provides two services in GPON – aggregation of all the TDM services from the remote ONTs onto an OC-3/STM-1 link, and cross connect functionality to reduce the number of TDM uplinks to the backhaul. CES performance is affected directly or indirectly by four main characteristics of the packet network: packet loss packet miss-order packet delay variation (PDV) packet network latency and PDV modulations. GPON provides an ideal transport medium for CES in that packet loss and packet missorder are either non-existent, or so negligible as to be completely unnoticeable in the context of CES. PDV, also known as packet jitter, is a function of the scheduling performance of GPON, which is under the complete control of the GPON operator. CES is capable of complying with jitter/wander requirements in ITU-T G.823/G.824 at PDV levels as high as 20 ms. As a result, even PDVs of a few milliseconds in a GPON is not considered to be problematic for CES compliance with very strict jitter/wander requirements. PDV modulations resulting from variations in traffic patterns in the GPON network, for example due to IP video streaming sessions being created and torn down, may have a potential effect on the performance of the clock recovery in CES. However, CES supports two mechanisms for clock recovery. The first is adaptive clock recovery, in which all the synchronization is based on timing information derived only from the CES packet stream. The second mechanism, differential timing, uses an out-of-stream clock source as a reference for clock recovery. In the case of GPON, a very accurate 8kHz clock source is provided over the GPON, and this can be used by CES to overcome any potential issues of synchronization in the event of significant PDV modulations. 27 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained CESoGPON introduces packet headers that consume bandwidth. Depending on the mode used, and the packet payload size, the bandwidth overhead is at least 4%. CES also requires a finite time to packetize and reassemble the TDM stream at the ingress and egress of the packet link. The end-to-end delay (not including the network latency introduced by GPON) can be reduced below 1 millisecond depending on the configuration of the CES and the GPON. CESoGPON has the following key benefits: already standardized in IETF, ITU-T, MEF and MPLS Forum mature and deployed over other access infrastructures support for fractional T1/E1 as well as unstructured TDM services support of multi-operator leased line deployment reduced complexity and bill of materials in the OLT removes dependency on availability of TDM backhaul link for OLT scalable aggregation and cross-connect capacity enabler of end-to-end network convergence. As mentioned above, CES was first tested in 1998 and it has been adopted in many market segments including metro Ethernet, DOCSIS access (HFC) and fixed wireless access, resulting in a broad based, tried and tested technology that is available now for GPON operators. An additional benefit afforded by CESoGPON is its full support of fractional T1/E1 services up to single DS0 granularity. This is in addition to support for unstructured (clear channel) transport of Nx T1/E1 services where required. Fractional T1/E1 services comprise the majority of TDM services offered today and form an essential part of a service offering to commercial users. Perhaps the most significant benefit of CESoGPON is its cost effectiveness. Eliminating costly TDM infrastructure simplifies the OLT architecture. Removing complexity drives down costs and enables fast time-to-market service delivery of TDM services to business users and non-TDM services to residential and commercial users, the vast majority of the target market for GPON today. Eliminating the need for a direct TDM link next to the OLT also has the advantage of broadening the GPON footprint beyond locations where availability of TDM capacity is available today. CES also supports delivery of full, and fractional, leased line services from multiple operators over a single GPON due to the fact that is supports multiple clock domains and recovery. This provides GPON operators with the option of selling First Mile leased line infrastructure service to other operators. Finally, CES is highly scalable and supports aggregation of many TDM bundles ( > 2000 for STM-1) at up to DS0 granularity for rates up to STM-1/OC-3. This enables operators to easily match the OLT TDM service capacity to the specific requirements of areas in which either businesses or residences predominate. The telecommunications industry has invested more than forty years in building high performance TDM-based infrastructure for the transport of both voice and data applications. As result, more than $25 billion worth of TDM services are transported each year over that infrastructure. The gradual replacement of TDM infrastructure with packet-based infrastructure such as GPON, must support the continued huge demand 28 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained for TDM services in a cost-effective, flexible way that blends in easily with the hybrid TDM-Ethernet telecommunication networks that will exist for many years to come. CESoGPON provides a smooth and fast migration path for operators that are deploying GPONs to deliver both TDM-based commercial services and IP-based services over high performance fiber access networks and simultaneously reduce their cost of deploying the technology. Bandwidth Demand Before choosing the delivery platform (BPON, GPON or Active) the network bandwidth requirements must be determined and from this the network sized. Sizing the commercial sub-networks has to be done on a business-by-business basis as their bandwidth needs vary depending upon the services they wish to access. In sizing the residential network, the average bandwidth per subscriber must be determined. To make this determination of the services the network will deliver must first be made. On a residential level the network will be required to support at a minimum: IP video (future) Broadcast Video HDTV Interactive remote learning Telephony Internet Interactive gaming Automated Meter Reading Bandwidth requirements can be divided into three main groups: voice, video and data. These are equivalent to the content to be transported by the network. The vendor equipment chosen must be able to provision and prioritize the bandwidth delivered to each subscriber, according to their needs, guaranteeing the QoS level required for each traffic type. How much is enough bandwidth? Today’s Digital Home 43 Mb/s 1 HDTV = 14 Mb/s 2 SDTV = 3.5 Mb/s 1 Internet = 20 Mb/s 1 phone line = 1Mb/s Tomorrow’s Digital Home 59.6 Mb/s 1 VOD / PVR = 14 Mb/s 2 SDTV = 4 Mb/s 2 HDTV = 14 Mb/s 1 TeleWorking (or Learning) = 5 Mb/s 1 online gaming = 3.0 Mb/s 1 online shopping & banking = 1.5 Mb/s 2 phone lines = 128 kb/s 29 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Table 1 Service Required Bandwidth Collaborative remote studio, video editing Broadcast quality video per channel Full motion video conferencing Lower quality video conferencing Application hosting/delivery HDTV per channel IP Video per channel (compressed) VoIP POTS (voice telephony) and AMR Internet Telemedicine Interactive remote learning, online university Interactive Gaming Business inventory and remote management Electronic investment and banking 45 Mbps symmetrical 6 Mbps asymmetrical 6 Mbps symmetrical 128 to 512 Kbps symmetrical 128 Kbps per desktop symmetrical 12 Mbps asymmetrical 12 Mbps asymmetrical 64 to 256 Kbps per phone 1.5 Mbps symmetrical 1 to 6 Mbps symmetrical 128 to 512 Kbps symmetrical 5 Mbps symmetrical 128 to 512 Kbps symmetrical 56 to 128 Kbps Voice Voice, or telephony, while requiring the least amount of bandwidth needs the highest level of QoS. This means that voice takes precedence over all other forms of traffic on the network. Assuming the average number of telephones per home will be two, 128 Kbps to 512 Kbps will be required for telephony traffic dependent upon the vendor solution chosen. Video In a residential application, video would be the second priority, while in a commercial or business application it might be third. Whatever its order of delivery, though, the largest amount of bandwidth on the network will be consumed by video. In the United States, all television broadcasting was mandated to be digital broadcasting from the current analog by 2009. Starting in March of 2007, all television sets that are produced are required to have a built-in HDTV/DTV tuner. The government is also subsidizing the cost of “DTV Broadcast Convert” boxes for households with standard televisions.7 As of this writing, the success of the government subsidy converter box program is unknown. Many argue that remittance of the coupon does not guarantee that the converter boxes will be properly installed. Therefore, it is recommended that to ensure that no costly upgrades are required in the near future, the network should be engineered to accommodate HDTV from day one. In the United States there is an average of 2.5 to 3 televisions per single-family residence. For purposes of establishing a high-level network requirement three televisions per home with one set capable of HDTV should be assumed. Online gaming and fully interactive distance learning should also be added to the video bandwidth requirement. This results in a total video bandwidth requirement of approximately 25 to 30 Mbps if all services were to be delivered over Ethernet. 7 HDTV Set to Expand in 2009, HDTV-News, by Kathryn Lang, February 15, 2007 30 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained The FTTP industry, as a whole, is convinced that the future of video to the subscriber lies with IP based technologies. As television distribution technology evolves, a point will be reached where time-dependent broadcast TV (today’s standard network and cable fare) will be replaced by fully “on-demand TV”. On-demand TV, by definition, means that people could watch what they want whenever they want it, the only platform currently able to support it is IP. In comparison to all the other video delivery mechanisms currently available or on the horizon, only IP video distribution technology offers sufficient advantages to both consumers and service providers. If an IP video provider is not available (market research has shown that while IP video is technically feasible, but it will be at least 5 years before IPTV is as robust and feature rich as traditional cable TV using quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). This does not however obviate the overall bandwidth requirements of the network. Data In residential applications, data receives the lowest QoS priority of the three traffic types. Conversely, this is likely not true of commercial applications where data may be the lifeblood of the business. At the residential level, data traffic will consist primarily of Internet and AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) access. For Internet access, 2 Mbps of bandwidth should be allocated while AMR will require 128 Kbps per end user; data requirements total 2 to 2.25 Mbps average per residence. Business applications, however, will be scalable to the specific demand. Varying degrees of security and dedicated bandwidth/reliability will correspond to each customer’s specific requirements. Bandwidth Summation There are currently 6,500 residential housing units and 86 businesses within Pelican Bay’s territory8. Based on the bandwidth figures derived above the maximum sustained bandwidth requirement per home is approximately between 20 to 30 Mbps. While some households will exceed this figure, others will not reach it. This figure serves as an average benchmark by which vendor equipment solutions can be evaluated. This should be the determining factor the OAN network bandwidth requirement for Pelican Bay. Initially, individual residential subscribers will not require more than 50 Mbps of bandwidth, particularly if the RF video platform is chosen. However, this need is expected to rise dramatically once the residents of Pelican Bay begin to make use of the services that are to be made available over their fiber network. To avoid costly and disruptive future upgrades in outside and inside plant, the bandwidth requirement figure of 45 Mbps per subscriber should be considered for evaluating, comparing and contrasting the various vendors network architectures that could be selected to meet that level of demand. Further, the product selected must have the capability of scaling at least an order of magnitude without fork lifting the majority of the hardware. Fiber Topologies All outside plant deployments of FTTP share some common attributes, with only minor product specific variations on a theme (even for “active” versus passive” technologies). When viewed from a high level (or alternatively, when view from the street), there is a common physical, three tier architecture for deploying fiber to the home. Coming out of 8 Pelican Bay CDP, Florida, U.S. Census Bureau, January 2012. 31 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained the central office there will generally be a few large cable assemblies (minimum being one), the feeder cables that will contain all of the fibers that have been consolidated to serve multiple hundreds to thousands of subscribers. These cables will serve “LCPs”, or Local Convergence Points (passive fiber distribution hubs that usually placed in a “daisy-chain” fashion). These fiber hubs are enclosures that support multiple distribution cables and serve between a few dozen to several hundred subscribers. LCP is a generic architectural name. The physical implementation could range from an aerial, strand mounted splice case to a buried hand hole with enclosure to a pad mounted cabinet. The LCP may include only splices from the feeder cable to the distribution cable, passive optical splitters or active components. Coming out of the LCPs, the distribution cables will serve multiple fiber drop terminals that are factory terminated and ready for installation. These terminals are engineered back to and aggregation splice point to take advantage of larger fiber cable counts which reduce the number of fiber sheaths construction personnel have to work with. Each terminal Network Access Point (NAP) will serve from one to twelve subscribers via drop cables, the third leg of the three-tier architecture. A NAP is typically a splice case that would either be aerial mounted or placed in a grade level hand-hole. Just like the LCP, the NAP may be used to enclose splices from the distribution cable to the crop cable or it may contain passive optical splitters that will consolidate multiple subscribers onto a single fiber. In aerial applications the NAP would typically serve up to four subscribers. In buried applications the NAP is usually planned to support from two, four, six or eight subscribers. The primary fiber topologies can be categorized into 3 types; Ring, Bus and Tree. Ring The ring topology is primarily used where path protection is an end-user network requirement. As in the case of networks based on SONET technologies, a ring topology provides for redundant service delivery via diversely routed fiber paths and paired transmission capabilities at the network core (refer to Figure 9). This topology type is primarily used for Long Haul and Metro applications where, due to high-sustained bandwidth requirements, network survivability is a primary requirement. 32 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained User 3 User 4 Optical Signal Source User 2 User 1 Figure 9 Bus The bus topology consists of direct linear signal feeds to each subtended subscriber on the network (refer to Figure 10). This topology is used in situations where the existing fiber routes and geographical considerations dictate its use. User 3 User 1 Optical Signal Source User 2 User 4 Figure 10 Tree The tree topology is essentially a linear network feed from OLT to splitter to the subtended ONTs (refer to Figure 11). The tree allows maximum efficiency in fiber usage and deployment as well as maximum usage of the minimum amount of deployed equipment. It also allows for path redundancy where required through the use of additional splitters, paired OLTs and diversely routed fiber. 33 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained User 1 User 2 Optical Signal Source Splitter User 3 User 4 Figure 11 The designer to optimally place the optical splitters may use the penetration rates derived from the marketing survey. Based on this research the distribution of the splitter combiners can be advantageously placed so as to guarantee a minimal amount of stranded fiber. With thoughtful design, the PONs can be populated efficiently during the initial deployment stages. More importantly the PONs can be further populated on as required basis during subsequent phases of network build. From a network perspective, one can equate an OLT, or PON termination interface, to a 32 port Ethernet switch. A properly designed tree topology increases the longevity of the optical plant. For example; assume the 1:4 splitter a 1:2, and the four 1:8’s will become two 1:16’s. Locate the 1:2 splitter in the CO. Then locate the 1:16 splitters in Aerial or Drop enclosures in the field (refer to Figure 12). 34 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained PON Configuration 1:16 A User 1 ONU 2 User 2 ONU 16 User 16 ONU 17 User 17 ONU 18 User 18 ONU 32 User 32 Field Splitters 1:2 OLT 1 ONU 1 CO Splitter 1:16 B Figure 12 When the PON’s designed maximum bandwidth usage is exceeded leg 1:16 B, the CO splitter is removed, and a second OLT is added at the CO (refer to Figure 13). The bandwidth to all subscribers is effectively doubled, with no forklift upgrade. PON Reconfiguration OLT 1 1:16 A Field Splitter OLT 2 Added 1:16 B ONU 1 User 1 ONU 2 User 2 ONU 16 User 16 ONU 17 User 17 ONU 18 User 18 ONU 32 User 32 Figure 13 There are five major advantages to the tree having local convergence at the substations: 35 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained 1. The field splitters served by a particular CO splitter need not be in close geographical proximity to each other. This allows a great deal of flexibility when configuring the PON design. 2. Bandwidth usage can be balanced at the CO by simple redistribution of the interconnects between the legs of the CO splitters and the incoming fiber feed of the field splitters. 3. If the bandwidth demands on any PON increase beyond the design criteria, bandwidth to any PON can be increased by removal of the CO splitter and the installation of an additional OLT (as shown in figure 5). This allows the network to effectively double the bandwidth to all end-users on a PON with no changes/additions to the OSP design or fiber counts and minimal disruption to the end-users on the PON. 4. If over time, bandwidth usage on a given PON remains significantly lower than the design specification, subscribers can be added to the PON (up to a limit determined by the specific network design criteria) or PONs may be aggregated as long as the total ONT count does not exceed the design limit. 5. Additional fiber, no matter what the topology, must be held in reserve for maintenance purposes and future growth of the network. The Tree topology allows a higher degree of flexibility in managing the growth of the network. The Bus topology increases the cost of a network beyond the just the cost of the added fiber required per cable. There is a significant increase in the amount of splicing required. With splicing costs normally running around 20 dollars per splice, a homerun topology (as regards OSP) is usually significantly more expensive. It should be noted that much of the cost associated with splicing is actually cable preparation. The cost of additional splices at a given location should be less than the $20 average. It is recommended that for residential applications, an FTTP network base itself primarily on the Tree topology. FTTB design considerations for large bandwidth or high resiliency users may require a Bus approach. However, these should be considered on a case-bycase basis with any additional cost beyond the efficient tree configuration being born by the user. Beyond a design average, residential applications do not tend to change dramatically as regards bandwidth requirements. Bandwidth requirements for businesses on the other hand vary with time as they expand and contract dependant on vagaries in the economy or other outside factors. Therefore, the network solution chosen by the Pelican Bay must be capable of delivering services over primarily Tree and some Bus topology. Given the relatively high cost of electronics and the low cost of fiber and labor today, Spectrum recommends working with the selected vendor to select the specific implementation of the outside plant that will yield the optimal results given the nature of the Pelican Bay project and the specific attributes of the product. 36 Appendix 6 – Technology: Further Explained Appendix 7 – Project Schedule Appendix 7 – Project Schedule Pelican Bay Appendix 7 - Project Schedule ID Task Name Duration Start Jun 1 Qtr 3, 2012 Jul Aug Sep Qtr 4, 2012 Oct Nov Dec Qtr 1, 2013 Jan Feb Qtr 2, 2013 Apr Mar May Jun Qtr 3, 2013 Jul Aug Sep Qtr 4, 2013 Oct Nov Dec Qtr 1, 2014 Jan 2 PBF 3 PBF Decision Point - Interest in Project 10 days Fri 6/29/12 4 Legal and regulatory review 35 days Mon 7/16/12 5 Community Survey 60 days Mon 7/16/12 6 Preliminary Engineering Design 10 days Fri 8/10/12 7 Site Survey & Walkout 20 days Tue 9/11/12 8 Revise Construction Cost Estimate 5 days Tue 10/9/12 Engineer 9 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 10 days Tue 10/16/12 PBF 10 Determine Electronics Technology 10 days Tue 10/30/12 11 Complete Detailed Design 95 days Tue 11/13/12 12 Infrastructure Plans 75 days Tue 11/13/12 13 Construction Specifications 10 days Tue 2/26/13 14 Service Standards & Specs. 15 days Tue 2/26/13 15 Electronics Specifications 10 days Tue 3/12/13 25 days Tue 3/19/13 16 Develop RFPs 17 Construction RFP 5 days Tue 3/19/13 18 Electronics RFP 5 days Tue 3/26/13 19 Content RFP 5 days Tue 4/2/13 20 Customer Service & Maintenance RFP 10 days Tue 4/9/13 21 Receive Quotes 15 days Tue 4/23/13 22 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 14 days Tue 5/14/13 23 Refine Business Plan 10 days Mon 6/3/13 24 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 15 days Mon 6/17/13 25 Award Construction 1 day? Mon 7/8/13 26 Construction 280 days Tue 8/6/13 27 Develop Implementation Plan 220 days Tue 10/29/13 28 Construct Head End 60 days Tue 6/17/14 29 Implement Electronics 20 days Tue 9/16/14 30 Internet Connection Turn-up 45 days Tue 8/12/14 31 Implement Testbed Customer Base 20 days Tue 10/28/14 32 Audit and Adjust 60 days Tue 11/25/14 33 Full Implementation 60 days Tue 2/17/15 34 Rollout Complete 0 days Mon 5/11/15 Project: Pelican Bay Date: Wed 6/27/12 Legal PBF Engineer Engineer Engineer,PBF Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer PBF Engineer PBF PBF Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone 1 Deadline Gantt Chart Pelican Bay Appendix 7 - Project Schedule ID Task Name Duration Start Feb 1 Mar Qtr 2, 2014 Apr May Jun Qtr 3, 2014 Jul Aug Sep Qtr 4, 2014 Oct Nov Qtr 1, 2015 Jan Dec Feb Mar Qtr 2, 2015 Apr May Jun Qtr 3, 2015 Jul Aug Sep 2 3 PBF Decision Point - Interest in Project 10 days Fri 6/29/12 4 Legal and regulatory review 35 days Mon 7/16/12 5 Community Survey 60 days Mon 7/16/12 6 Preliminary Engineering Design 10 days Fri 8/10/12 7 Site Survey & Walkout 20 days Tue 9/11/12 8 Revise Construction Cost Estimate 5 days Tue 10/9/12 9 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 10 days Tue 10/16/12 10 Determine Electronics Technology 10 days Tue 10/30/12 11 Complete Detailed Design 95 days Tue 11/13/12 12 Infrastructure Plans 75 days Tue 11/13/12 13 Construction Specifications 10 days Tue 2/26/13 14 Service Standards & Specs. 15 days Tue 2/26/13 15 Electronics Specifications 10 days Tue 3/12/13 25 days Tue 3/19/13 16 Develop RFPs 17 Construction RFP 5 days Tue 3/19/13 18 Electronics RFP 5 days Tue 3/26/13 19 Content RFP 5 days Tue 4/2/13 20 Customer Service & Maintenance RFP 10 days Tue 4/9/13 21 Receive Quotes 15 days Tue 4/23/13 22 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 14 days Tue 5/14/13 23 Refine Business Plan 10 days Mon 6/3/13 24 PBF Decision Point - Abort/Continue 15 days Mon 6/17/13 25 Award Construction 1 day? Mon 7/8/13 26 Construction 280 days Tue 8/6/13 27 Develop Implementation Plan 220 days Tue 10/29/13 28 Construct Head End 60 days Tue 6/17/14 29 Implement Electronics 20 days Tue 9/16/14 Contractor,Engineer 30 Internet Connection Turn-up 45 days Tue 8/12/14 Service Provider,Engineer 31 Implement Testbed Customer Base 20 days Tue 10/28/14 32 Audit and Adjust 60 days Tue 11/25/14 33 Full Implementation 60 days Tue 2/17/15 34 Rollout Complete 0 days Mon 5/11/15 Project: Pelican Bay Date: Wed 6/27/12 Contractor PBF,Service Provider,Engineer Contractor Contractor,Service Provider,PBF Contractor,Service Provider,PBF,Engineer Contractor,Service Provider,PBF,Engineer 5/11 Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone 2 Deadline Gantt Chart Appendix 7 - Project Schedule Pelican Bay PBF Decision Point - Intere Legal and regulatory review Start: 6/29/12 ID: 3 Start: 7/16/12 ID: 4 Finish: 7/12/12 Dur: 10 days Finish: 8/31/12 Dur: 35 days Res: PBF Res: Legal Community Survey Start: 7/16/12 ID: 5 Finish: 10/5/12 Dur: 60 days Res: PBF Preliminary Engineering De Site Survey & Walkout Revise Construction Cost E PBF Decision Point - Abort Determine Electronics Tec Complete Detailed Design Infrastructure Plans Construction Specification Electronics Specifications Start: 8/10/12 ID: 6 Start: 9/11/12 ID: 7 Start: 10/9/12 Start: 10/16/12 ID: 9 Start: 10/30/12 ID: 10 Start: 11/13/12 ID: 11 Start: 11/13/12 ID: 12 Start: 2/26/13 ID: 13 Start: 3/12/13 ID: 15 Finish: 8/23/12 Dur: 10 days Finish: 10/8/12 Dur: 20 days Finish: 10/15/12 Dur: 5 days Finish: 10/29/12 Dur: 10 days Finish: 11/12/12 Dur: 10 days Finish: 3/25/13 Finish: 2/25/13 Finish: 3/11/13 Dur: 10 days Finish: 3/25/13 Dur: 10 days Res: Res: Res: Comp: 0% Res: Engineer Res: Engineer ID: 8 Engineer PBF Engineer, PBF Dur: 95 days Res: Dur: 75 days Engineer Res: Engineer Res: Engineer Develop RFPs Construction RFP Start: 3/19/13 ID: 16 Start: 3/19/13 ID: 17 Finish: 4/22/13 Dur: 25 days Finish: 3/25/13 Dur: 5 days Comp: 0% Res: Engineer Service Standards & Specs Start: 2/26/13 ID: 14 Finish: 3/18/13 Dur: 15 days Res: Project: Pelican Bay Date: Wed 6/27/12 Critical Noncritical Critical Milestone Milestone Critical Summary Summary Critical Inserted Inserted Critical Marked 1 Marked Critical External Engineer External Project Summary Highlighted Critical Highlighted Noncritical PERT / CPM Appendix 7 - Project Schedule Pelican Bay Electronics RFP Content RFP Customer Service & Mainte Receive Quotes PBF Decision Point - Abort Refine Business Plan PBF Decision Point - Abort Award Construction Construction Construct Head End Implement Electronics Start: 3/26/13 ID: 18 Start: 4/2/13 ID: 19 Start: 4/9/13 ID: 20 Start: 4/23/13 ID: 21 Start: 5/14/13 ID: 22 Start: 6/3/13 ID: 23 Start: 6/17/13 ID: 24 Start: 7/8/13 ID: 25 Start: 8/6/13 ID: 26 Start: 6/17/14 ID: 28 Start: 9/16/14 Finish: 4/1/13 Dur: 5 days Finish: 4/8/13 Dur: 5 days Finish: 4/22/13 Dur: 10 days Finish: 5/13/13 Dur: 15 days Finish: 5/31/13 Dur: 14 days Finish: 6/14/13 Dur: 10 days Finish: 7/5/13 Dur: 15 days Finish: 7/8/13 Dur: 1 day? Finish: 9/1/14 Dur: 280 days Finish: 9/8/14 Dur: 60 days Finish: 10/13/14 Dur: 20 days Res: Engineer Res: Engineer Res: Engineer Res: Engineer Res: PBF Res: Engineer Res: PBF Res: PBF Res: Contractor Res: Contractor Res: ID: 29 Contractor, Engineer Develop Implementation Pl Start: 10/29/13 ID: 27 Finish: 9/1/14 Res: Project: Pelican Bay Date: Wed 6/27/12 Critical Noncritical Critical Milestone Milestone Critical Summary Summary Critical Inserted Inserted Critical Marked 2 Marked Critical External External Dur: 220 days PBF, Service Provider, Engine Project Summary Highlighted Critical Highlighted Noncritical PERT / CPM Appendix 7 - Project Schedule Pelican Bay Internet Connection Turn-u Implement Testbed Custom Start: 8/12/14 Audit and Adjust Full Implementation Start: 10/28/14 ID: 31 Start: 11/25/14 ID: 32 Start: 2/17/15 ID: 33 Finish: 10/13/14 Dur: 45 days Finish: 11/24/14 Dur: 20 days Finish: 2/16/15 Finish: 5/11/15 Dur: 60 days Res: Res: Res: ID: 30 Service Provider, Engineer Project: Pelican Bay Date: Wed 6/27/12 Critical Contractor, Service Provider, Noncritical Dur: 60 days Contractor, Service Provider, Critical Milestone Res: Milestone Rollout Complete Milestone Date: Mon 5/11/15 ID: 34 Contractor, Service Provider, Critical Summary Summary Critical Inserted Inserted Critical Marked 3 Marked Critical External External Project Summary Highlighted Critical Highlighted Noncritical PERT / CPM