1. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’
MARCH 31, 2015

2. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
Opening Remarks:
AMY SESOL, EVENT PRODUCER, NEDAS

3. Panel Event Sign
Training Session Charging Station Lanyard Coffee Break
Table Top
Platinum Networking Reception Gold Networking Reception
THANK YOU TO OUR EVENT SPONSORS
Webcast and Video

4. THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS

5. THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR
LIVE WEBCAST STREAMING AND VIDEO
LIVE WEBCAST RIGHT NOW!
http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/nedasnyc

6. THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS
PLATINUM
GOLD
SILVER

7. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
OPENING KEYNOTE:
‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’
PRESENTED BY:
ILISSA MILLER, PRESIDENT, NEDAS

8. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’

9. EVERYWHERE WE GO, NO MAT TER WHERE WE ARE,
OUR MOB I L E PHONES ARE WI T H US.
These smartphones
enable access to people,
information, email, video,
cameras, data, and
much more.

10. T HE AB I L I T Y TO CONT ROL NEARLY EV ERYT HI NG
F RO M ANY SMART MO B I L E DEV I CE

11. SEE ANYT HI NG F ROM ANYWHERE. . .
PAY FOR ANYTHI NG FROM ANY DEVI CE
Like the GOJI™
SMART LOCK
LG’s
smartwatch is a
phone, mobile
wallet and uses
WebOS

12. A WO RL D T HAT ‘ WHERE’S WAL DO ’ DOESN’ T NEED TO EXI ST

13. F ROM F I ND MY PHONE TO F I ND MY SUI TCASE
Bluesmart’s
Suitcase with it’s
own SIM-card
(by Telefonica)

14. T HE AB I L I T Y TO B UY NEARLY ANYT HI NG AT ANYT I ME
CarsGroceries
Toys
Clothes
Assistants
Real Estate
Movies
Hosting Services
Computers
Taxis
Plane Tickets
Designers
Utilities
Insurance
Games

15. SEL F -DRI V I NG CARS

16. ONL I NE SHOPPI NG

17. WI T H I oT DEMANDS EV ERYWHERE
SHOUL D WE F EEL T HREAT ENED, OR ENAB L ED?

18. MOB I L E COMMUNI CAT I ONS EV ERY WHERE
Penetration
Fiber
Reflection

19. I NFO RMATI O N ROUT I NG & STORAGE

20. • Arenas
• Hospitals
• Office
• Home
• Municipalities
• On the go
I NFORMATI ON I S F UNNEL ED B ET WEEN DATA CENT ERS
AND CONSUMERS EV ERYWHERE

21. HOW DID WE
GET HERE?

22. Over 170 Years Ago Morse introduced the
electric Telegraph.
32 years later, in 1876 Bell invented the
telephone.
128 years ago, the first coin-operated telephone
was installed – and now they’re becoming
extinct.
Less than 100 Years
with Desk Phones!
HOW DI D WE GET HERE?
Herbert Hoover the
1st U.S. President
with a Phone on his
desk in 1929

23. Fantasy books and science
fiction visionaries set the
scene for today’s mobile
world.
1931 a book that describes “a science
fiction nightmare city with mobile
phones and moving walkways”
1945, in a Wireless World article,
Arthur C. Clarke first proposed Satellite
communications.
MOB I L E PHONES AND SAT EL L I T ES
The 35th of May, or
Conrad’s Ride to
the South Seas

24. I N JUST T HE PAST 5 0 YEARS
• The Pager – 1957 in Allentown and
Bethlehem, PA
• Modems (datasets) – 1958 by AT&T
• Touch-tone phones – 1960
• Computers – 1964, IBM’s Model 360
• FCC begins to set aside spectrum for
land mobile communications - 1968
• The Internet is founded – ARPANET’s
four-node operations 1969
• Video and Audio transmitted from
the moon - 1969

25. B O RN I NTO AN ERA O F ENAB L EMENT

26. 1 9 8 0 ’S T HE DAWN OF T HE MODERN I NT ERNET AND
I NTRODUC TI ON OF MOBI LE COMMUNI CATI ONS
• 1981 - First cellular mobile telephone service is
offered in Saudi Arabia and Scandinavia
• 1984 - Breakup of AT&T; AT&T and NASA space
shuttle Discover launch its second Telstar 3
satellite. September 1 - Domain Name Service
(DNS) is introduced.
• 1984 - First cellular phones (just 31 years ago!)
• 1985 - AT&T Bell Laboratories combines 10 laser
beams on a single optical fiber demonstrating
the capability of lightwave systems to carry 20
billion bits per second (equal to 300,000
telephone calls.)
• 1987 – IEEE publishes a paper on Distributed
Antennas for Indoor Radio Communications
• 1988 - First Internet Exchange Point established

27. T HE ADV ENT OF
TECHNOLOGY CONT I NUES
• 1998 - Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Nokia, and Toshiba
announce they will join to develop Bluetooth for
wireless data exchange between handheld computers
or cellular phones and stationary computers
• 1999 - Wi-Fi® brand adopted for technology based
upon IEEE 802.11 specifications for wireless local area
networking.
• 1999 - Wi-Fi Alliance® founded by six companies:
3Com, Aironet, Intersil, Lucent Technologies, Nokia and
Symbol Technologies.
• 1999 - With the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999, Congress designates 911 as the
universal emergency number of wireline and wireless
service promoting the use of technologies that help
public safety service providers locate wireless 911
callers.
• 2000 - Digital wireless users outnumber analog
subscribers.

28. TODAY
Over
356 Million
Wireless Subscribers
in the U.S.

29. TODAY INTO TOMORROW
Testing new Wi-Fi Spectrum
(since 2013) Set to become an MVNO
(announced MWC 2015)
Changing laws, enabling technologies,
opening up spectrum

30. STARBUCKS CREATES A DI GI TAL NETWORK

31. AMAZON TRI ALS WI RELESS NETWORK

32. FACBOOK’S AQUI LA DRONE TO BEAM I NTERNET CONNEC TI VI TY

33. A NEW ERA

34. • Voice
• Data
• Peering
• Data Centers
• Base Station
Hotels
• Cell Towers, etc.
AT T HE CORE OF WHAT WE DO – COL L EC T I V ELY –
I S OUR AB I L I T Y TO ENAB L E:

35. WE’RE LOOKI NG AT THE HORI ZON

36. DATA EVERYWHERE

37. COMMUNI CAT I ONS AL L AROUND

38. I NFORMATI ON I S UB I Q UI TOUS

39. A WI REL ESS - POWERED WO RL D

40. HI STORY PROV I DES L ESSONS

41. I MAGI NAT I ON TAKES T HEM B EYOND

42. I CHAL L ENGE YOU

43. Just the tip of a DandelionWE’RE JUST A T I P O F A DANDEL I ON

44. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
RFP DO’S AND DON’TS
Sponsored by:
MODERATOR: DOUGLAS FISHMAN, SQUAN

45. MODERATOR
SPONSORED BY:
PANELISTS
Douglas Fishman
Squan Solutions
Rob Lopez
RCC
Larry Werner
The Clarient Group
Ray DuTremblay
WSP-F&K
Tom Chamberlain
ADRF
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

46. AGENDA
CHALLENGES
NEEDS ANALYSIS
BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS
WRITING RFPs
RESPONDING TO RFPs
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

47. CHALLENGES
PROJECT TYPE
PROJECT (NEW/EXISTING)
WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDER BUY-IN?
TECHNOLOGY
STAKEHOLDER(S)
ARCHITECTURAL LIMITATIONS
SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
SCHEDULE
EXPECTATIONS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

48. NEEDS ANALYSIS
o TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
PURPOSE
 CELLULAR
 FIRST RESPONDER (ARCS)
 2-WAY COMMERCIAL (LMR)
COVERAGE
COORDINATION W/OTHER SYSTEMS (WIFI, ETC.)
FREQUENCIES
PROJECT (NEW/EXISTING)
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

49. BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS
STAKEHOLDERS
 OWNER
 WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS
 3RD PARTY NEUTRAL HOST PROVIDERS
BUILD-OUT
 PATHWAYS/CABLE
 AND THEY WILL (OR WON’T) COME?
FUNDING
REVENUE
OPERATIONS
UPGRADES
MAINTENANCE
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

50. WRITING RFPs
“APPLES to APPLES”
DEFINE REQUIREMENTS IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO GET
COMPARABLE RESPONSES
EXAMPLE “DO” – PROVIDE AN EXCEL-BASED PRICING
SPREADSHEET FOR ALL RESPONDENTS TO USE
EXAMPLE “DON’T” – PROVIDE OPEN-ENDED REQUIREMENTS
THAT ALLOW TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY IN RESPONSES.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

51. WRITING RFPs
SPECIFICITY VS. FLEXIBILITY
 AVOID TOO MUCH SPECIFICITY TO GIVE RESPONDENTS FLEXIBILITY
IN DEVELOPING A CREATIVE RESPONSE
 PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ON DESIGN RFPs
 EXAMPLE “DO” – DEFINE EXACT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS,
TECHNOLOGIES TO BE USED/SUPPORTED, ETC.
 EXAMPLE “DON’T” – DEFINE SPECIFIC ANTENNA MAKE/MODELS,
VENDOR REQUIREMENTS, ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

52. WRITING RFPs
VENUE REQUIREMENTS
ACCURATELY AND SPECIFICALLY DEFINE THE VENUE OWNER
REQUIREMENTS, E.G.
 ANTENNA PLACEMENT RESTRICTIONS
 AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
 CABLING RESTRICTIONS/REQUIREMENTS
 AVAILABILITY OF EXISTING FIBER, ELECTRIC, COOLING
 RISER ACCESS
 WORKING HOURS
 COORDINATION REQUIREMENT WITH OTHER TRADES
(ARCHITECTS, ELECTRICIANS, ETC.)
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

53. WRITING RFPs
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
BE SPECIFIC
 WIRELESS CARRIERS TO BE INCLUDED
 TECHNOLOGIES
 FREQUENCY BANDS
 CHANNEL COUNTS
 COVERAGE AREA / % OF COVERAGE AREA
 SIGNAL STRENGTH (RSSI VS RSRP, EC VS PILOT POWER)
 PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

54. WRITING RFPs
TESTING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIFY HOW THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD PROVE THAT THEY
MEET THE COVERAGE & TESTING REQUIREMENTS
 SWEEPS – RANGES, THRESHOLDS, RL VS DTF
 PIM TESTING – SYSTEM VS SEGMENT, THRESHOLDS
 CW TESTING
 BASELINE TESTING - METRICS
 FIBER TESTING – OTDR, LOSS REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

55. WRITING RFPs
DAS DESIGN
INCLUDE DESIGN WITH RFP, OR LEAVE IT TO THE BIDDERS?
Include Design with RFP Bidders Provide Design
PRO: Allows for a true
“apples to apples”
comparison for construction
of the DAS
PRO: Allows for creative and
perhaps more effective
solutions for the venue
CON: Bidder “buy-in” to the
design with associated
coverage guarantees
CON: Variety of designs
more difficult to
compare/evaluateIF DESIGN IS REQUIRED
REQUEST IBW FILE FOR EVALUATION
DESIGN MUST BE APPROVED BY ALL PARTICIPATING WSPs
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

56. WRITING RFPs
WSP COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
 DESIGN APPROVALS
 ACCESS AGREEMENTS
 INTEGRATION WITH WSP SIGNAL SOURCES
 ON-GOING COORDINATION
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

57. WRITING RFPs
LABOR REQUIREMENTS
 PLA REQUIREMENTS
 MBE/WBE REQUIREMENTS
 WORKING HOURS
 COORDINATION
 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

58. WRITING RFPs
WARRANTY / POST TURN-UP REQUIREMENTS
 LABOR VS MATERIAL WARRANTIES
 OPTIONAL EXTENDED WARRANTY
 MAINTENANCE / SLAs
 REMOTE MONITORING
 SPARES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

59. RESPONDING TO RFPs
 INITIAL RFP REVIEW
 DEVELOP SUMMARY OF KEY REQUIREMENTS
 DEVELOP LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR RFP ISSUER
 DRAFT RESPONSE INCLUDING ALL REQUIRED SECTIONS
(‘STRAWMAN”)
 SOLICIT INPUT FROM SALES/MARKETING, ENGINEERING,
OPERATIONS, OEMs, ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

60. RESPONDING TO RFPs
 COMPILE RESPONSES – MAKE SURE ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE
ADDRESSED
 WRITE EFFECTIVE COVER LETTER – INCLUDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, KEY SELLING POINTS, KEY CONTACT INFORMATION,
ETC.
 COMPLETE RESPONSE AT LEAST 2-3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO
ALLOW FOR REPRODUCTION, MAKING SOFT COPIES, SHIPPING
AND DELIVERY
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

61. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
CREATE EVALUATION MATRIX FOR “APPLES TO APPLES”
COMPARISON
DEVELOP SCORING/WEIGHTING SYSTEM
 TECHNICAL
 FINANCIAL
 QUALIFICATIONS
 WARRANTY/MAINTENANCE
 WSP COORDINATION
 ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

62. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

63. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

64. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

65. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
 IBWAVE MODELING VS. REALITY
 QUANTITIES OF ANTENNAS, REMOTES
 CONFORMANCE TO REQUIREMENTS
 EQUIPMENT EVALUATION (ADRF, COMMSCOPE, ETC) – QUALITY,
RELIABLILITY, MAINTAINABILITY, ABILITY TO HANDLE FUTURE
TECHNOLOGIES/BANDS, ETC.
 COVERAGE – LOCATION OF GAPS VS. KEY COVERAGE AREAS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

66. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
FINANCIAL EVALUATION
 CAPEX VS. OPEX
 INCLUSION OF ALL FEES – TAXES, S&H?
 MAINTENANCE, WARRANTEE, RMA FEES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

67. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
QUALIFICATIONS
 YEARS IN WIRELESS VS. YEARS IN DAS
 RECENT PROJECTS
 LOCAL EXPERIENCE
 RELATIONSHIP WITH WSPs
 KEY PERSONNEL QUALS – PROJECT MANAGER, LEAD ENGINEER
 RESPONDENT LOCATION VS. VENUE LOCATION
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

68. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
WARRANTY / MAINTENANCE
 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN WARRANTY
 LABOR
 MATERIALS
 WARRANTY PERIOD
 POST-CUTOVER SUPPORT
 EXTENDED WARRANTY OPTIONS
 HOW WILL WARRANTY SERVICE BE SUPPORTED?
 EXPERIENCE WITH MAINTAINING / MONITORING DAS?
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

69. QUESTIONS?
RFP Do’s and Don’ts

70. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
TOWER SAFETY: KEY DEVELOPMENTS
PRESENTED BY:
MIKE JONES
CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HPC WIRELESS SERVICES

71. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
DAS & WiFi- A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
MODERATED BY:
FEDOR SMITH, PRESIDENT
ATLANTIC-ACM

72. DAS & WiFi- A Symbiotic Relationship
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Fedor Smith
Atlantic ACM
Mike Collado
SOLiD
Chintan Fafadia
PCTEL
Jeff Bonja
Corning
Bill DelGrego
ExteNet

73. Our practitioners have extensive experience in strategy and
diligence cases across carriers, technology companies and
financial institutions
Note: Graphic above provides a sample of our client list and is not an exhaustive representation of ATLANTIC-ACM clients

74. NOW
Cellular, WiFi
& PON
ONETM
Unlimited
Bandwidth
of Fiber to
the Edge
LATER
Security, HVAC,
location & other
applicationsONE
Simple.
network
that
is future
ready
All the
Capacity
you need now,
Future Ready,
for you now
Optical Communications © 2014 Corning Incorporated
Jeff Bonja
Wireless Solution Engineer
Corning Optical Communications

75. ExteNet Systems, Inc.
Bill “Shoes” Delgrego, Executive Director
LEADING PROVIDER OF DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS
TO THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY IN NORTH AMERICA
24x7
NOC
in our
Lisle HQ
WI-FI
SMALL CELLS
DISTRIBUTED
RAN
DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA
SYSTEM (DAS)
EXTENET
DISTRIBUTED NETWORK
DISTRIBUTED EPC

76. 76PCTEL –NEDAS NYC 2015
PCTEL RF Solutions
Products and Services for all your wireless network design, deployment, testing and
optimization
SeeWave
Test Solutions
Network Analytics

77. 77PCTEL –NEDAS NYC 2015
PCTEL RF Solutions
 Network Benchmarking
 VoLTE testing
 Baseline Testing
 CW Testing
 Design
 PIM Testing
 RF Sweep Testing
 OTDR Testing
 Commissioning
 Optimization
 Acceptance
 Interference Mitigation
 Consulting
Network Engineering Services
Expert Knowledge, Exceptional Tools
PCTEL’s engineering services team provides
Wireless network services with an emphasis on in-
building distributed antenna systems (DAS).

78. mike.collado@solid.com
Distributed Antenna Systems | Small Cell Backhaul | C-RAN Fronthaul

79. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
DAS DESIGN & DEPLOYMENT FROM
START TO FINISH
SPONSORED BY:
MODERATED BY:
JORDAN FRY
ASSOCIATE, SNYDER & SNYDER

80. DAS Design and Deployment
from Start to Finish
MODERATOR
SPONSORED BY:
PANELISTS
Jordan Fry
Snyder & Snyder
Ray Kramarcy
Alpha
Technologies
Jeff Reale
Intenna Systems
Art Meierdirk
INOC
Fred Bancroft
Corning
Carla Shaffer
Anixter

81. • KEYS TO SUCCESS ON A COMPLEX DAS PROJECT
– Good Planning
• Requirements definition, DAS design, ambient signal testing, wireless
service provider coordination, pre-construction activities
– Good Execution
• High quality installation, thorough testing & documentation, optimization
– Good Leadership
• Business development, design engineering, field engineering,
construction management (pre-sales through commissioning through
service & maintenance)
– Good Communication
• Design & testing documentation, carrier coordination packages, periodic
construction & progress updates, closing documentation (as-builts)

85. Architecture Selection:
Passive, Hybrid Fiber Coax or All Fiber
Considerations:
Remote Output Power and Power Consumption
Physical Equipment Size
Upgrade Path
Neutral Host
Services to be deployed

86. 86
Typical network
installation
Cat
5e/6
Cell
MDF
Coax
IDF
WiFi
LAN
FIBER
15K ft coax
180K ft Cat 5e/6
5,500 pounds

87. made SimpleONE™
Wireless Platform
Convergence
FIBER
MDF IDF
ActiFi
™
Cell
WiFi
POL
3
U
7K ft composite
30K ft fiber
700 pounds
DAS Design and Deployment
from Start to Finish

88. All Fiber DAS Benefits

89. All Fiber DAS Benefits

90. All Fiber DAS Benefits

91. Powering Indoor Distributed Antenna Systems
Headend
Coax
Cabling
Fiber
Cabling
• Power requirement for IDAS network split into two segments: Headend &
remote access unit (RAU)
• Main interface unit
• Optical converter unit
• System controller
• Battery recharge time
• Future growth
• Remote access units
• Remote hub units
Headend
RAU

92. Basics of DAS Power
• Local – AC UPS or DC Plant with Batteries at each remote hub
• Remote – All equipment is fed from a centralized power system in the Headend
Key Considerations
• Length of Back-up time required
• Availability of AC power at each remote
• Cable Distance from Head End to farthest remote
• Space availability for power equipment and batteries
• Individual remote loads and voltage
• Maintenance
• Class 2 Architecture

93. NEC CLASS 2 Fundamentals
• NEC Class 2 Circuits – 20V to 60V & < 100VA
• Class 2 circuits are considered safe from a fire initiation standpoint and provide
acceptable protection from electrical shock
• Class 2 circuits can be installed using conventional surface-mounted cable (no
conduit, MC or armored cable)
• Class 2 circuits do not require the authorization of a certified electrical personnel
(permitting and licensing)
• Two methods of circuit protection - Article 725 of the National Electric Code
[not article 800]
Composite fiber/copper cable
CL2P-OF (Class 2 Plenum Cable Optical Fiber)

94. • Current limiting panels distribute centralized power over copper cable to multiple
remote iDAS nodes
• Panels include circuitry to limit the total power per circuit to 100VA or must use
an aggregation unit
• Maximum distance dictated by wire gauge and voltage
Headend/Host Site
Current Limited
48Vdc Panel
-48Vdc
Power
System
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
AC
Battery
~
=
Class 2 Power Layout
450 VA
70 VA

95. Non-Class 2 Power Drivers
• AC Powered Remotes
• High power consumption remotes
• Distances exceeded 2500ft
• Jurisdictional restrictions
• Same conceptual layout as Class 2 Solution, except single circuit cable for
conductor & conduit/armored cable installed by electrician
• AC remote fed layouts driven a large UPS in the Headend offers many of the
same benefits of a Class 2 DC solution

96. Headend Power
• Standard runtime is generally 4 to 8 hours
• Vast range in loads, from 1000W to 15kva
• Equipment voltage commonly -48 vDC
– Can create a dual power system requirement with AC for remotes & DC for
Headend
• Reliability / Modularity / Scalability
• Space and environmental conditions

97. DAS Need
Identification
Budgetary
Quote
Site Survey
Initial Design &
BOM
Statement
of Work
RFSurvey
DetailedDesign
& RevisedBOM
Final Site
Survey
Final Design &
BOM
Carrier
Approval
& Order
Installation
Commissioning
& Acceptance
Proprietary © 2015 Anixter Inc.
DAS PROJECT MILESTONES
Integrator
Integrator
Integrator
Contractor

99. Common Installation Problems
• Labeling
• Grounding
• ½” Coax Cabling
• Splitters and Couplers
• PIM

100. Anixter’s Elite DAS Network
Integrators
• iBwave certified
• DAS OEM certifications
• Operator Relationships
Contractors
• Cabling certifications
• PIM certifications
• DAS OEM Installation certifications

102. Operations Support is for the life of the service, it should be a key
consideration during the design phase, with a focus on key SLA
requirements from the contract.
SLAs are usually written for each carrier on a Neutral Host system, be prepared to
manage each as unique:
• Uptime (outage time, should not include impairments)
• Response time to alarms
• Response time to calls / email / portal communication
• Mean Time To Restore (usually based on severity)
• Time to Dispatch / On-site
• Exception / Force Majeure
Design a cost effective solution to meet those requirements.
Operations Support is for the Life of the Service

103. Operations Support Planning – Hardware & Management
• Business planning / budgeting
• Purpose / objectives / SLAs to support
• SLA – Uptime / Response time - 3rd party support agreements
• Hardware selection – include neutral host support requirements
• Network (including management network) design in redundancy
HOST
MGT
MGT
MGT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Industry Standard
alarms and
management
GUI – Effective
Navigation
For Troubleshooting &
Restoration
Management information (by
Carrier) to the remotes
Operations Support – Hardware & Management

104. FIRST LEVEL TIER 1 TEAM
24x7 Service Desk, Incident Management
(Trouble Ticketing, Notification, Escalation, Troubleshooting, Reporting…)
TIER 2 AND 3 SUPPORT ENGINEERS
DAS Backhaul Environmental
Carriers Security Dispatch
REPORTING&ANALYSIS
INFRASTRUCTURE/FACILITIES
MONITORING SYSTEMS & TOOLS
WIRELESS CARRIERSMANAGEMENT / USERS
HOST
MGT
MGT
Design for Neutral
Host Support
Design for Neutral Host Support

105. Operation Support is for the life of the service
Design a Cost Effective Solution to meet Business Requirements / Expectations
• Hardware is selections include operations support requirements
• Support requirement designed to meet SLA / business requirements
• Back to back operations agreements to meet those needs
• Design in redundancy for “management network”
• Build information (network, site, contact, etc.) database from beginning
• 24x7 Network Operations Center
• Capable of opening, updating and closing incidents with carriers
• Tiered structure (Level 1, 2 & 3) for cost effective resource allocation
• Fully documented work instructions & management data bases
• Workflow management tools in place for effective support
• Consider outsourcing – manage the quality, cost and risk of service delivery
• On site support
• NOC support (typically Tier 1 / Service Desk)
Summary

106. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
BASE STATION HOTELING- MICRO
SOLUTION DEPLOYMENTS
MODERATED BY:
JAKE RASWEILER, COO
SUBLIME WIRELESS

107. Base Station Hoteling- Micro Solution
Deployments
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Mark Parr
Bandwidth Logic
Joshua Broder
Tilson
Ken Sandfeld
SOLiD
Jake Rasweiler
Sublime Wireless
Ray LaChance
ZenFi Networks

108. • How much capacity on a pole?
• What drives capacity?
• RAN resource locations?
• Future scalability?
5G What? LTE-U Who?
• Where is the SILVER bullet?

109. High Density Urban Network Options
BBU
CPRI fed RHU’s
Dedicated Fiber per RHU
2-4 Bands MIMO per RHU – 1 Operator
Full carrier spectrum per band
Switch
BBU
BBU
SC
SC SC SCSCSwitch
Daisy Chain using WDM optics
16-48 Channels preferred
Ethernet fed Small Cells
Dedicated Fiber per SC
2-4 Bands MIMO per SC – 1 Operator
DAS DAS DAS
BBU +
Radio
Daisy Chain using WDM optics
24 Remotes per fiber
Ring Capable
GbE Small Cells
Next Gen DAS
Head
End
RHU
Agg
HUB
8
Branches
Routing
Function Digital optics feed DAS remotes
CPRI Fed RHU’s
Dedicated Fiber per remote or Daisy
Up to 5 Bands MIMO + GbE
Multiple operators
RHU RHU RHU RHU
RHU
RHU
Daisy Chain using WDM optics
16-48 Channels preferred
CPRI Radio Heads

110. About me
• Network engineering
background as an Army
signal officer
• Deployed large fiber
and wireless smart grid
networks during
stimulus
• Leading a team of DAS
and small cell
deployment pros

111. Tilson
• 100 employees deploying
DAS, small cells, and
macro sites for carriers
• 5 national office,
including NNJ
• Deploying smart grid
wireless on poles
• Pole attachment people-
65,000 in past three years

112. Base Station Hoteling
Existing EnodeB
Service Router
oDAS Headed
Hotelled EnodeB
Hotelled Radios
Shared Backhaul
oDAS remote nodes
Existing macro site

113. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THIRD PARTY VALIDATION FOR DAS
SYSTEMS: AN INSIDE OR OUTSIDE JOB?
SPONSORED BY:
MODERATED BY:
DOMINIC VILLECCO, PRESIDENT, V-COMM

114. Third-Party Validation for DAS Systems: An
Inside or Outside Job?
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Dominic Villecco
V-COMM
Nathan Cornish
Transit Wireless
David Evans
AT&T
SPONSORED BY:

115. TRANSIT WIRELESS OVERVIEW
CONNECTING THE UNDERGROUND
#1 busiest & largest transit system in North America
4% increase of NYC subway ridership from 2012 to 2013
2.6+ billion NYC subway riders annually
Phase 1&2: 76
Stations
COMPLETE
Midtown Manhattan &
Queens
Phase 3: 39 Stations
IN-PROGRESS
Uptown/Downtown
Manhattan
Phase 4: 39 Stations
IN-PROGRESS
Bronx, Upper East Side
& Midtown Manhattan
Phase 5: 41 Stations
SPRING 2016
Midtown Manhattan &
Brooklyn
Phase 6: 41 Stations
WINTER 2016
Downtown Manhattan
& Brooklyn
Phase 7: 42 Stations
SPRING 2017
Midtown/Downtown
Manhattan & Brooklyn
New Yorkers are always “on the go” and always
connecting – but the one place they have been
disconnected is the subway.
• Robust, high capacity wireless network with
industry-leading speeds
• Wireless service within 83 Manhattan and
Queens stations
• 279 underground stations covered by 2017
NETWORK BUILD PLAN

116. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

117. PARALLEL SYSTEM
• Parallel system – Mobile
& Wi-Fi
• Distributed antennas for
Mobile System
• Access points for Wi-Fi
and 4.9GHz Public Safety
• Fiber to the edge parallel
to coaxial network

118. DESIGN APPROVAL: CARRIER
• CMRS requirement for AT&T,
Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon
Wireless
• Current bands:
• 700
• 800 SMR
• 850 CELL
• 1900 PCS
• 2100 AWS
• -85 dBm @ 95% of the
coverage area
Transit Wireless coverage for the carriers includes all public space as well as ingress/egress
• Ingress/egress
areas are where
handoff occurs

119. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
1. Construction:
Physical Installation by electrical contractors
• Coaxial and Passive Intermod (PIM)
2. Carrier Wave (CW) Testing:
• Confirms coverage against RF design
• Confirms coverage meets customer SLAs
3. Carrier Integration:
• Installation of carrier equipment & connection to Transit Wireless DAS
• Confirmation of handoff to outside macro and ability to make 911 calls
• Carrier optimization
4. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Testing:
• Confirmation of quality of carrier services
• Call quality, dropped calls, handoffs, signal levels and throughput speeds

120. PROPAGATION MODELING CONFIRMATION
RF Prediction
V-COMM Field Confirmation

121. CARRIER WAVE (CW) TESTING
Between Antennas
Lower Signal Levels
Cell Band
AWS Band

122. CW TESTING: COMPARISON TO DESIGN
Coupler Issue Identified via
comparison to iBwave
CW Report (Issue)
CW Report (Resolved)
iBwave Prediction

123. CMRS METRICS TESTING
• Contractual Agreements between Transit Wireless and CMRS provider requires
Transit to meet specific RF metrics.
•RSRP (LTE); RSCP (UMTS/HSPDA); RSSI (GSM, EVDO);
Pilot Power (CDMA)
Downlink RF Signal Strength
•SINR (LTE); EC/IO (CDMA/EVDO); Ec/NO
(UMTS/HSPDA); RxQual (GSM)Downlink RF Quality
•BER (LTE/UMTS/HSPA), FER (CDMA/EVDO/GSM)
Downlink Error Rates
•PCI (LTE); Scrambling Code (UMTS/HSPDA); PN
(CDMA/EVDO); BCCH (GSM)
Downlink Cell ID for Trouble
Shooting
Uplink TX Power
Typical Quality Metrics Required (taken with commercial devices):

124. SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLA)
• Service Level Agreement to define specific KPIs (Key
Performance Indicators) that measure the CMRS customer’s
experience
• Testing performed with commercial devices to demonstrate
User Experience (UX)
• Typical KPIs
• Voice: Dropped Calls, Block Calls (Access Failures),
Handover Failures
• Data: Throughput (both Downlink and Uplink) Averages
and Peaks, Dropped Connections, Failed Connections

125. UMTS SIGNAL STRENGTH TESTING
Cell UMTS RSCP

126. CONTRACTOR TRAINING
• Individually trained construction team to ensure
quality standards
• Contractor skill sets do not “translate” well for
RF work
• RF concepts
• RF equipment handling and installation
• RF commissioning
• Certification program
• Implementation of an extensive Quality
Assurance program “a must” to reduce
expensive “rework” for successful deployments

127. CONTRACTOR TRAINING MATERIAL

128. EMF TESTING
• DAS systems are not exempt from FCC EMF requirements
• Predictive and Measured Studies have been conducted
Measured Results
Adjusted Results
RF Exposure MPE Public Limit

129. AT&T WIRELESS
• AT&T operates wireless networks in the New
York BTA, MTA and CMA in the following
frequency bands:
– 700 MHz
– 850 MHz (cellular)
– 1900 MHz (PCS)
– 2300 MHz (WCS)
• AT&T NY Metro DAS installations 50+
• 50% neutral host tenant
• 50% neutral host operator

130. AT&T DAS DESIGN APPROACH
Internal
(AT&T)
3rd Party
Project summary X
Design summary information
(system requirements)
X
Validation of venue capacity X
BTS dimensioning X
Design scope X
Validate pre-design data
(benchmark data)
X
Design quality assurance X
Design coverage objectives X
System configuration X X
Coverage plots X X
Regulatory requirements X X

131. LAYOUT SECTORIZATION PLAN

132. TECHNICAL SELECTION
• Design approach:
• RF Passive DAS
• Low-power Optical DAS
• High-power Optical DAS
• Overcoming Interference
• Using iBwave to predict RSSI
• Practical considerations:
• Building drawings are never available for all floors
• Tenants will impose restrictions on antennas
• Space
• Head end
• Remote locations
• Cable runs
• Fiber plant

133. EMPTY FLOOR PLANS
• Design Criteria: Design for -55dBm
or higher RSSI in iBwave to account
for undocumented walls
• Prediction: iBwave design predicted
-55dBm RSSI for 94% of floor
• Measurement: Walk test results
show -70dBm or higher RSSI
covering 100% of floor
RSSI (dBm)
Floor Layout

134. SAME BUILDING – ALTERNATE DESIGNS
Collaboration with third-party designer
Original Design
Alternative Design

135. AT&T DESIGN CRITERIA
UMTS
Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Best indoor server RSCP >= best macro server RSCP + 6dB for 95% of the transition area where
traffic is located, including stairs and elevators.
• Best indoor server RSCP >Best macro server RSCP for remaining 5% of the venue transition area
LTE
Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Best indoor server RSRP >= best macro server RSRP + 6dB for 95% of the area where traffic is
located, including stairs and elevators.
• Best indoor server RSRP >Best macro server RSRP for remaining 5% of the area

136. ANTENNA DESIGN SOLUTIONS

137. THIRD-PARTY VALIDATION DISCUSSION
• Transit Wireless
• MTA contractual requirements
• Carrier tenant contractual requirements
• V-COMM third-party validation for both
• AT&T
• Tenant of neutral host
• Operator of neutral host
• Operator of independent DAS
• Third-party help on all

138. QUESTIONS?
Questions?

139. THANK YOU
Thank you

140. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
ZONING, JURISDICTIONS, RIGHTS OF WAY-
NAVIGATING PERMITS FOR DEPLOYMENTS
MODERATED BY:
ILISSA MILLER, TRUSTEE
VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK

141. Zoning, Jurisdictions, Rights of Way- Navigating
Permits for Deployments
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Marvin Webster
Environmental
Corporation of America
David Bronston
Phillips Lytle
Lino Sciaretta
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP
Ilissa Miller
Trustee
Village of
Mamaroneck
and NEDAS President

142. ACCELERATION F BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
(FEBRUARY 9, 2015)
• Provided definition of “Antenna”.
• Clarifies that Collocation exclusions apply to all non-tower structures,
not just buildings.
• Clarifies that interior deployments are subject to the same exclusions
(and inclusions) as exterior deployments.
• NEPA exclusion for new & replacement facilities in Aboveground
Utility ROW if no substantial increase. No NHPA exclusion here.
• Eliminates the requirement for SHPO review of Collocations on Utility
poles based solely on age, provided that size limits are met (3/6/17)
• Allows for modification of some existing facilities on non-tower
structures over 45 years old.

143. ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – NEW AND
REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES IN UTILITY ROW
• The FCC adopted new NEPA categorical exclusion for new and
replacement small structures within active above-ground utility
corridors, provided there is no substantial increase in size (10% or 20
vertical feet) over existing structures and that ground disturbance is
limited to the proximity of the new or replacement structure within
the easement.
• Important - This is a NEPA exclusion, not an NHPA exclusion. SHPO
Review Required in Same Manner as Prior Utility Exclusion, so that
Exclusion does not hold in a historic district, for instance. Tribal
consultation is required for all new, non-replacement Tower
Structures.

144. ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – UTILITY
COLLOCATIONS
• FCC adopted exclusion for collocation on existing Utility poles/structures
where there is no new ground disturbance and the antennas and
equipment do not exceed a specified volume (3 cf. each
antenna/enclosure, not to exceed 6 cf. in the aggregate and a total 17 cf.
for all equipment enclosures across all wireless implementations at a
specific location or node). Not applicable to:
• Collocations on light poles, traffic lights, or any non-Utility structures.
• Not applicable within 250 feet of a historic district
• Not applicable on utility structures that are listed in or eligible for
the National Register, or where there is a documented complaint
relative to historic properties.

145. ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – ON
EXISTING NON-TOWER STRUCTURES OVER 45 YEARS OLD
• FCC adopted an exclusion for collocation/modification of a facility located
on a Non-Tower Structure where there are pre-existing antennas and no
new ground disturbance.
• Exclusion provides size and height restrictions (antennas no more than 3
feet wider or taller).
• New visible antennas must be within 10 feet, as measured from
centerlines for visible antennas.
• Views of new and replacement antennas must encompass existing
antennas.
• No new equipment cabinets may be visible from adjacent streets and
public spaces. (see next slide).

146. ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – ON
EXISTING NON-TOWER STRUCTURES OVER 45 YEARS OLD
• Pre-existing antennas must not have been deployed
using this exclusion.
• New/replacement antennas must comply with existing
zoning and historic preservation requirements for
existing antennas (i.e., concealment, painting to match
existing surfaces, etc.).
• Exclusion not applicable within 250 feet of a historic
district, on Non-Tower Structures that are listed in or
eligible for the National Register, or where there is a
documented complaint relative to adverse effects to
historic properties.

147. 2014 FCC Infrastructure Report
& Order
Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities
Siting Policies, Report & Order
(WC 11-59; WT 13-238, 13-32)
NEDAS NYC Summit

148. • “a State or local government may not deny,
and shall approve, any eligible facilities
request for a modification of an existing
wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions
of such tower or base station.”
Section 6409 entitled “Facility Modifications”

149. • “eligible facilities request” is defined as any
request for modification of an existing
wireless tower or base station that involves
(a) collocation of new transmission
equipment;
(b) removal of transmission equipment; or
(c) replacement of transmission equipment.
Section 6409 Provisions (cont’d)

150. • Eliminate ambiguities in interpretation and
facilitate the zoning and permitting process for
collocations and other modifications to
existing towers and base stations
• Avoid delay of addressing these issues in the
courts
Section 6409 Purposes of Regulation:

151. A modification would be a substantial change if it meets any of the following
criteria:
(1) For towers outside public right-of-way, an increase in height of the tower
by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with
separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,
whichever is greater; for towers within public right-of-way and for all base
stations, an increase in the height of the tower or base station by more than
10% or ten feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For towers outside public right-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the
tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure
at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; and for those towers
within the right-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of
the structure more than six feet;
Section 6409: Substantial Change

152. (3) An installation of more than the standard number of new equipment
cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets;
(4) Any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or
base station;
(5) An installation that would defeat the existing concealment elements of the
tower or base station; or
(6) An installation not complying with conditions associated with prior
approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless
non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of
cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding
“substantial change” thresholds identified above.
Section 6409: Substantial Change (cont’d)

153. • State/local government may only require applicants to provide
documentation reasonably related to determining whether the request is
an eligible facilities request.
• State/local government has 60 days for review, timeframe can be tolled
by:
 Mutual agreement; or
 If reviewing body informs applicant within 30 days that application is
incomplete
Section 6409: Application Review

154. • Recognizes local authority over “placement, construction and
modification” of telecommunications facilities
• But local governments may not
– “unreasonably discriminate against providers of functionally equivalent
services”
– “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services”
– regulate on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions
• And local governments must
– act “within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed”
– if denying an application, do so in a written decision supported by
substantial evidence in a written record
154© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 § 704
(47 U.S.C. §332[c][7][A])
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

155. • No unreasonable discrimination
– Must apply the same rules to similar classes of service
• But flexibility for addressing different visual, aesthetic or safety concerns
– Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 639 (2d Cir. 1999)
• May not prohibit or have effect of prohibiting
– Not limited to outright ban
– Local government may not deny application for a facility that is the least
intrusive means for closing a significant gap in coverage
• Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999)
– “Significant gap” probably means significant gap in carrier’s coverage,
not wireless coverage generally
• De minimus gap need not be covered
155© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Substantive Limitations
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

156. • Writing does not have to be formal decision
– Letter denying application, plus sufficiently clear reasons in
contemporaneous written record is sufficient
• T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., __ U.S. __ (2014)
• Reasonable period of time
– 150 days for new antennas; 90 days for co-locations or modifications
• FCC Declaratory Ruling, 2009 WL 3868811
– Moratoria are ineffective
• FCC Declaratory Ruling, 2014 WL 5374631
– Runs from determination that application is complete
• Municipality has 30 days to decide or application is deemed complete and time to
decide runs from date of submission
• Can be tolled by notifying applicant within 10 days that application is incomplete
– 2014 FCC Declaratory Ruling
• City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1863 (2013)
156© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Procedural Requirements
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

157. • Local governments may not deny an
application to modify an existing facility by
co-location, removal or replacement if the
modification “does not substantially
change the physical dimensions” of the
existing facility.
157© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 § 6409(a) (47 U.S.C. § 1455[a])
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

158. • Application may be required
– But documentation limited to determining
whether proposed modification qualifies
• What is an existing facility?
– Generally, an approved facility that already
hosts telecommunications equipment
• A utility pole that does not host
telecommunications facilities is not an existing
facility for this purpose
158© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Modifications
FCC Report and Order, 2014 WL 5374631
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

159. • What is a substantial change?
– Changes of more than 10 feet in height or 6 feet in
width
• Measured from installation as originally approved
– Anything that defeats the “concealment elements” of
the facility
– Total replacement of structure is a substantial change
• Must act within 60 days or application is deemed
approved
– Moratoria are ineffective
• Restrictions do not apply to acts in proprietary
capacity
159© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Modifications
FCC Report and Order, 2014 WL 5374631 (con’t)
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

160. • You can and should
– Have a local law that establishes procedures and
standards consistent with the limitations established
by federal law
– Treat the application much like a site plan application
(other than timing)
– Hire consultants, particularly if there is a real issue of
“significant gap” or “least intrusive means”
• Do not
– Delay
– Discuss radiofrequency emissions in a decision,
unless applicant has not met federal standards
160© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Recommendations
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

161. Lino J. Sciarretta, Partner
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, New York 10604
T: 914.872.7790
E: lino.sciarretta@wilsonelser.com
161© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Contact
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP

162. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THE MACRO VIEW: BACK-HAUL SOLUTIONS
& STRATEGIES
PRESENTED BY:
HUNTER NEWBY, CEO, ALLIED FIBER

163. Wireless Backhaul
Non- Allied Fiber towers with
mobile wireless carrier tenants-
No fiber presence
5-10 Miles
1-10 Miles
1-2 Miles
1. Subsea Landing Point 4A. Third Party Towers with New Third Party Fiber Lateral Construction
2. Dual Fiber Ducts 4B. Third Party Towers with Third Party Microwave Backhaul
3. Allied Fiber Colocation 5. Data Center / Carrier Hotel
4. Allied Fiber Cell Towers
1
2
3
4
5
4A4B
Small Cell Backhaul = X 1,000

164. Allied Fiber Southeast Segment
Colocation AccessRoute Access
727 total route miles
- 364 +/- route miles from Miami, FL, to Jacksonville, FL
- 363 +/- route miles from Jacksonville, FL, to Atlanta, GA
Florida East Coast Railway (“FECR”) Right-of-Way
(“RoW”) agreement completed; Norfolk Southern Railway
(“NS”) Right-of-Way agreement completed and executed
Last “fully-built” underground conduits available along
corridor
3 new undersea cables terminating in Jacksonville and
Boca Raton, FL, provide fiber access to South America,
Europe and the Caribbean
Fiber Access
Intermediate access points at least every 3,000 / 5,000 (feet
depending on the route)
- Allows wireless operators and enterprises to efficiently
connect to a network-neutral fiber backbone
Dark fiber access points enable much needed rural broadband
solution
More than 250 towers already connected to the Allied Fiber
system
Network-neutral facilities located every 60 miles
- Accommodates long-haul signal regeneration equipment,
short-haul customer and local colocation customer
interconnection
Improves network control, performance and reduces latency
Distributed Internet Exchange architecture begin designed to carry
FL-IX
Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc..

165. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
Questions?
Thank you!

166. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
CLOSING REMARKS

167. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

168. THANK YOU TO OUR PLATINUM
NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS

169. THANK YOU TO OUR GOLD
NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS

170. Panel Event Sign
Training Session Charging Station Lanyard Coffee Break
Table Top
Platinum Networking Reception Gold Networking Reception
THANK YOU TO OUR EVENT SPONSORS
Webcast and Video

171. THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS

172. THANK YOU TO OUR WEBCAST AND VIDEO
SPONSOR

173. THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS
PLATINUM
GOLD
SILVER

174. AMAZING ATTENDEES!
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING