Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

NEDAS NYC 2015-March 31, 2015 all presentations final

1,385 views

Published on

The Northeast DAS and Small Cell Association’s (NEDAS) Third Annual Spring In-Building Wireless Summit brings together leading industry executives, vendors, service providers and end-users for learning, sharing, collaborating and presentations on cutting-edge DAS, Wi-Fi, and small cell technology solutions. The Third Annual Spring 2015 Summit takes place March 31, 2015 in New York City. Industry executives, providers, end-users, IT managers, network engineers, architects, vendors and more attend and take part in pre-event training sessions and panel discussions that explore the evolving landscape of in-building wireless solutions and technologies. This event explores through a collaborative and open environment solutions that will support the convergence of wireline and wireless technologies inherent in today’s hybrid wireless systems (a.k.a. heterogeneous networks).

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NEDAS NYC 2015-March 31, 2015 all presentations final

  1. 1. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT March 31, 2015 Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan ‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’ MARCH 31, 2015
  2. 2. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT March 31, 2015 Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan Opening Remarks: AMY SESOL, EVENT PRODUCER, NEDAS
  3. 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. 4. THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS
  5. 5. THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR LIVE WEBCAST STREAMING AND VIDEO LIVE WEBCAST RIGHT NOW! http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/nedasnyc
  6. 6. THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS PLATINUM GOLD SILVER
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. A WO RL D T HAT ‘ WHERE’S WAL DO ’ DOESN’ T NEED TO EXI ST
  13. 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. 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. 15. SEL F -DRI V I NG CARS
  16. 16. ONL I NE SHOPPI NG
  17. 17. WI T H I oT DEMANDS EV ERYWHERE SHOUL D WE F EEL T HREAT ENED, OR ENAB L ED?
  18. 18. MOB I L E COMMUNI CAT I ONS EV ERY WHERE Penetration Fiber Reflection
  19. 19. I NFO RMATI O N ROUT I NG & STORAGE
  20. 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. 21. HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  22. 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. 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. 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. 25. B O RN I NTO AN ERA O F ENAB L EMENT
  26. 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. 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. 28. TODAY Over 356 Million Wireless Subscribers in the U.S.
  29. 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. 30. STARBUCKS CREATES A DI GI TAL NETWORK
  31. 31. AMAZON TRI ALS WI RELESS NETWORK
  32. 32. FACBOOK’S AQUI LA DRONE TO BEAM I NTERNET CONNEC TI VI TY
  33. 33. A NEW ERA
  34. 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. 35. WE’RE LOOKI NG AT THE HORI ZON
  36. 36. DATA EVERYWHERE
  37. 37. COMMUNI CAT I ONS AL L AROUND
  38. 38. I NFORMATI ON I S UB I Q UI TOUS
  39. 39. A WI REL ESS - POWERED WO RL D
  40. 40. HI STORY PROV I DES L ESSONS
  41. 41. I MAGI NAT I ON TAKES T HEM B EYOND
  42. 42. I CHAL L ENGE YOU
  43. 43. Just the tip of a DandelionWE’RE JUST A T I P O F A DANDEL I ON
  44. 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. 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. 46. AGENDA CHALLENGES NEEDS ANALYSIS BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS WRITING RFPs RESPONDING TO RFPs EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  47. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 57. WRITING RFPs LABOR REQUIREMENTS  PLA REQUIREMENTS  MBE/WBE REQUIREMENTS  WORKING HOURS  COORDINATION  SECURITY REQUIREMENTS RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  58. 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. 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. 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. 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. 62. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES COMPARING DAS DESIGNS RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  63. 63. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES COMPARING DAS DESIGNS RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  64. 64. EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES COMPARING DAS DESIGNS RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  65. 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. 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. 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. 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. 69. QUESTIONS? RFP Do’s and Don’ts
  70. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 78. mike.collado@solid.com Distributed Antenna Systems | Small Cell Backhaul | C-RAN Fronthaul
  79. 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. 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. 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)
  82. 82. 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
  83. 83. 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
  84. 84. 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
  85. 85. All Fiber DAS Benefits
  86. 86. All Fiber DAS Benefits
  87. 87. All Fiber DAS Benefits
  88. 88. 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
  89. 89. 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
  90. 90. 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)
  91. 91. • 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
  92. 92. 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
  93. 93. 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
  94. 94. 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
  95. 95. Common Installation Problems • Labeling • Grounding • ½” Coax Cabling • Splitters and Couplers • PIM
  96. 96. Anixter’s Elite DAS Network Integrators • iBwave certified • DAS OEM certifications • Operator Relationships Contractors • Cabling certifications • PIM certifications • DAS OEM Installation certifications
  97. 97. 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
  98. 98. 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
  99. 99. 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
  100. 100. 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
  101. 101. 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
  102. 102. 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
  103. 103. • How much capacity on a pole? • What drives capacity? • RAN resource locations? • Future scalability? 5G What? LTE-U Who? • Where is the SILVER bullet?
  104. 104. 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
  105. 105. 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
  106. 106. 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
  107. 107. Base Station Hoteling Existing EnodeB Service Router oDAS Headed Hotelled EnodeB Hotelled Radios Shared Backhaul oDAS remote nodes Existing macro site
  108. 108. 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
  109. 109. 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:
  110. 110. 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
  111. 111. SYSTEM OVERVIEW
  112. 112. 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
  113. 113. 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
  114. 114. 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
  115. 115. PROPAGATION MODELING CONFIRMATION RF Prediction V-COMM Field Confirmation
  116. 116. CARRIER WAVE (CW) TESTING Between Antennas Lower Signal Levels Cell Band AWS Band
  117. 117. CW TESTING: COMPARISON TO DESIGN Coupler Issue Identified via comparison to iBwave CW Report (Issue) CW Report (Resolved) iBwave Prediction
  118. 118. 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):
  119. 119. 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
  120. 120. UMTS SIGNAL STRENGTH TESTING Cell UMTS RSCP
  121. 121. 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
  122. 122. CONTRACTOR TRAINING MATERIAL
  123. 123. 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
  124. 124. 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
  125. 125. 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
  126. 126. LAYOUT SECTORIZATION PLAN
  127. 127. 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
  128. 128. 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
  129. 129. SAME BUILDING – ALTERNATE DESIGNS Collaboration with third-party designer Original Design Alternative Design
  130. 130. 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
  131. 131. ANTENNA DESIGN SOLUTIONS
  132. 132. 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
  133. 133. QUESTIONS? Questions?
  134. 134. THANK YOU Thank you
  135. 135. 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
  136. 136. 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
  137. 137. 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.
  138. 138. 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.
  139. 139. 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.
  140. 140. 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).
  141. 141. 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.
  142. 142. 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
  143. 143. • “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”
  144. 144. • “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)
  145. 145. • 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:
  146. 146. 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
  147. 147. (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)
  148. 148. • 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
  149. 149. • 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
  150. 150. • 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
  151. 151. • 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
  152. 152. • 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
  153. 153. • 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
  154. 154. • 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
  155. 155. • 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
  156. 156. 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
  157. 157. 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
  158. 158. 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
  159. 159. 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..
  160. 160. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT March 31, 2015 Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan Questions? Thank you!
  161. 161. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT March 31, 2015 Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan CLOSING REMARKS
  162. 162. THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT March 31, 2015 Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING
  163. 163. THANK YOU TO OUR PLATINUM NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS
  164. 164. THANK YOU TO OUR GOLD NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS
  165. 165. 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
  166. 166. THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS
  167. 167. THANK YOU TO OUR WEBCAST AND VIDEO SPONSOR
  168. 168. THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS PLATINUM GOLD SILVER
  169. 169. AMAZING ATTENDEES! THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

×