CANARIE

“Community Condo Fiber Networks”How public-private partnerships can lead toward

early deployment of FTTH

http://www.canarie.ca

http://www.canet3.net

Bill.St.Arnaud@canarie.caTel: +1.613.785.0426

Mission: To facilitate the development of Canada’s communications infrastructure and stimulate next generation products, applications and services

Canadian equivalent to Internet 2 and NGI private-sector led, not-for-profit consortium consortium formed 1993 federal funding of $300m (1993-99) total project costs estimated over $600 M currently over 140 members; 21 Board members

CANARIE Inc

GigaPOP

CA*net 3 National Optical Internet

Vancouver

Calgary ReginaWinnipeg

Ottawa

Montreal

Toronto

Halifax

St. John’s

FrederictonCharlottetown

ORAN

BCnet

Netera SRnet MRnet

ONet RISQ

ACORN

ChicagoSTAR TAP

CA*net 3 Primary Route

Seattle

New York

CA*net 3 Diverse Route

Deploying a 4 channel CWDM Gigabit Ethernet

network – 400 km

Deploying a 4 channel Gigabit

Ethernet transparent optical DWDM–

1500 km

Multiple Customer Owned Dark Fiber

Networks connecting

universities and schools

16 channel DWDM-8 wavelengths @OC-192 reserved for CANARIE-8 wavelengths for carrier and other customers

Consortium Partners:Bell Nexxia

NortelCisco

JDS UniphaseNewbridge

Condo Dark Fiber Networks

connecting universities and

schools

Condo Fiber Network linking all

universities and hospital

The Context Policy makers around the world are trying to promote

competition in telecom A fundamental axiom is that competition drives

innovation and lower costs However competitive telecom market lately seems to be

going in the opposite direction Bankrupt CLECs, failed wireless companies

Real danger of re-monopolization of telecom Regulators tend only to respond long after the horse has

fled the barn Are there other ways of promoting competition in

telecom?

The good, the bad and the ugly Monopolies are bad Duopolies are ugly Private sector competition in an open competitive level playing field is good As much as possible governments should not intrude into the marketplace. However, sometimes government intrusion in the marketplace will produce

significantly greater benefits to the economy and society where otherwise “to do nothing would be to do harm” Bridges displace private sector ferry service operations Free trade disrupted business plans of many private sector companies Opening up of long distance competition disrupted business plans of

incumbent telcos To promote competition FCC had mandated open access and restrictions on

RBOCs Open access has largely been a failure and RBOCs are re-monopolizing Is there a better way?

There is a clear trend in all formerly monopoly services to move to competitive services

Electrical distribution systems: Separation of transmission costs versus power costs from competitive

suppliers Gas distribution systems: former regulated monopolies (unbundling is well

underway) Telecom is the last bastion of monopoly operation where services and

infrastructure are provided by same company

A growing trend

How to introduce competition “Structural separation” or “Facilities based competition” Road ways are examples of competition through structural separation while

parallel railways are examples of facilities based competition Structural separation is necessary where a natural monopoly exists – e.g.

city gas lines, city power lines To date telecom regulators have focused on “facilities based” competition

and “open access” Facilities based competition has been very successful in the long haul But has been not been successful in the mtero because same company is

operating on both sides of the fence competing on infrastructure and services Mistaken belief that wireless can compete effectively with fiber

One strand of fiber has capacity of all of the world’s existing wireless systems If fiber is a natural monopoly, particularly in last mile suburban areas, then

“structural separation” maybe more important than facilities based competition

Issues Fiber is the ultimate end game Once fiber is deployed no other technology can compete for fixed

telecommunication services One fiber strand has more capacity than combined bandwidth of all fixed

wireless networks existing or planned Wireless is important for mobility and last 50 feet Value of wireless decreases with the cube of the distance

Carriers want to go for low hanging fruit in downtown cores Little or no business case for single fiber in residential neighbourhoods

Unlikely to be several fiber companies serving neighbourhoods So how do we provide both FFTH and competition in residential

neighbourhoods?

Possible Solution

Municipal Condominium Fiber Network Governments partner with private sector to build condominium fiber networks

to all public sector buildings Government achieves social goal of affordable bandwidth to all public

sector buildings Condominium fiber allows many competitors to own strands of fiber into

the neighbourhood Cost of construction is shared amongst all participants

A change from the traditional telecom model where value of services is enhanced because of monopoly control of infrastructure

Municipal Condo Architecture

School

School board orCity Hall

School

Telco Central Office

Central OfficeFor Wireless

Company

VDSL, HFC or FTTHProvisioned by service provider

Condominium Fiber with separate strands owned by school and by service providers

Carrier Owned Fiber

Cable head end

Average Fiber Penetration to 250-500

homes

ColoFacility 802.11b

Business

Fiber Splice Box

What is condominium fiber? Several next generation carriers and fiber brokers are now arranging condominium fiber

builds IMS, QuebecTel, Videotron, Cogeco, Dixon Cable, GT Telecom, etc etc

Organizations such as schools, hospitals, businesses, municipalities and universities become anchor tenants in the fiber build

Each institution gets its own set of fibers on a point to point architecture, at cost, on a 20 year IRU (Indefeasible Right of Use)

One time up front cost, plus annual maintenance and right of way cost approx 5% of the capital cost

Fiber is installed and maintained by 3rd party professional fiber contractors – usually the same contractors used by the carriers for their fiber builds

Institution lights up their own strands with whatever technology they want – Gigabit Ethernet, ATM, PBX, etc

New long range laser will reach 120 km Typical cost is $25,000 (one time for 20 years) per institution

Benefits to Carriers For cablecos and telcos it help them accelerate the deployment of high speed

internet services into the community Currently deployment of DSL and cable modem deployment is

hampered by high cost of deploying fiber into the neighbourhoods Cable companies need fiber to every 250 homes for next generation

cable modem service, but currently only have fiber on average to every 5000 homes

Telephone companies need to get fiber to every 250 homes to support VDSL or FSAN technologies

Wireless companies need to get fiber to every 250 homes for new high bandwidth wireless services and mobile Internet

It will provide opportunities for small innovative service providers to offer service to public institutions as well as homes

For e-commerce and web hosting companies it will generate new business in out sourcing and web hosting

Condo Fiber Costs - Examples Des Affluents: Total cost $1,500,00 ($750,00 for schools)

70 schools 12 municipal buildings 204 km fiber $1,500,000 total cost average cost per building - $18,000 per building

Mille-Isles: Total cost $2,100,000 ($1,500,000 for schools) 80 schools 18 municipal buildings 223km $21,428 per building

Laval: Total cost $1,800,000 ($1,000,000 for schools) 111 schools 45 municipal buildings 165 km $11,500 per building

• Province wide network of condominium fiber to 420 communities in Alberta

• Guaranteed cost of bandwidth to all public sector institutions• $500/mo for 10 Mbps, $700/mo for 100 Mbps

• Network a mix of fibre builds and existing supplier infrastructure (swap/buy/lease)

• Condominium approach: All suppliers can• Buy (or swap) a share of the fibre (during build or after)• Lease bandwidth at competitive rates

• Because of fibre capacity, bandwidth can be made available to businesses at urban competitive rate

• Total cost $193m• Bell Intrigna prime contractor

Alberta SUPERnet

Extended Area• 372 communities• GOA/stakeholder needs• Proceeds from

businesses (urban benchmarked rates) to GOA to further network

Base Area• 48 communities• GOA/stakeholder needs• Business proceeds to Bell

(urban benchmarked rates)

- $143 Million GOA

- 100% GOA IRU

- $50 Million

GOA

- 33%GOA IRU

- $102 Million

Bell

- 67% Bell IRU

Alberta SUPERnet IRUs

•CivicNet - A City-Wide Condominium Fiber Project •connecting up 1600 public sector institutions

•Plus 200 and more private sector organizations•Oriented to Development of Backbone Infrastructure•With Gateways to Tributary Systems•More Fiber in More Places Faster•Ubiquitous, Pervasive: 1,600 Locations•E-Z High-Performance Low-Cost Internet Connectivity•Foundation = Existing City Fiber Builds

Chicago CivicNet

South Dundas IROQUOIS

MORRISBURG

South Dundas Results

Morrisburg , Iroquios Have Fibre Hung Electronics In and Fibre Lit ISP’s , ASP’s all Want In he Fibre Major Employers Inquiring Very Positive Attitude in Community Digital Desert to Digital Oasis This fall – FTTH to all homes

Peel County Municipal Fiber Network

Mississauga, Brampton, Pell 200 km of Fibre 96 strand backbone

“Enough for small country”

12-60 strands elsewhere 12,000 strand-kilometers

Laid end-to-end = Victoria to St. John’s …...and back again

Fredericton Fiber Build

Started as Economic Development tool MUSH, Govt., Research - ISP, carriers invited to

participate Build partners emerged quickly, $50,000

“donated” by three firms Contracting now for 8 km phase 1, $110,000,

complete Sept 2001 48 fiber min. Phase II – FTTH to all homes

National Broadband Task Force Mandate:To map out a strategy and advise the Government

on best approaches to make high-speed broadband Internet services available to businesses and residents in all Canadian communities by the year 2004.

To ensure Canada’s competitiveness in a global economy To address the Digital Divide To create opportunities for all Canadians 35 members including carriers, educators, librarians,

communities, equipment manufacturers, etc Chair – David Johnston Final recommendations – June 17th

Gigabit Internet to the Home With condominium fiber builds multiple carriers share in the cost of fiber build

out to neighbourhood nodes serving approximately 250 homes It is impractical to have multiple carriers own individual strands to each and

every home: Therefore let the customer have title to individual fiber from the

residence to the neighborhood node The customer connects to the service provider of their choice at the

neighborhood node The result is third commercial network running in parallel to telephone and

cable for high speed Internet only Avoids regulatory and technical issues of 911, number portability, etc Encourages SMEs and entrepreneurs to build the infrastructure Customer premise device is very simple and cheap

PON will be retrogressive step for FTTH

Gigabit to the Home

ISP BISP C

School

Splice Box

Municipal Condominium Fiber Trunk

Up

to

15 k

m

Customer owns fiber strand all the way to

ISP

X

XX

864 strands

ISP D

ISP E Colo Facility

Colo Facility

Business with dual

connections