Michigan Higher Education Dark Fiber Acquisition Project

Transcription

1 Appendix II Michigan Higher Education Dark Fiber Acquisition Project The University of Michigan, on behalf of its partners Michigan State University and Wayne State University issued a Request for Information (RFI) in May 2003 for the purpose of identifying qualified providers of dark fiber optic cable in southern Lower Michigan and the Chicago area. Through the acquisition of owned fiber strands between Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Detroit and Chicago, the three institutions will have virtually unlimited bandwidth for the next 20 years between their campuses and to major national and international research interconnection points in Chicago. At the same time, they expect to reduce their costs for external networking by eliminating costly leased telephone company circuits. The fiber acquisition is being coordinated with Merit, since Merit provides Internet service to the three schools and will continue to do so. The RFI was sent to about 30 potential providers who were given two weeks to respond. The entire process was done via and the length of responses was limited, although some vendors ignored the length limitations. Ten vendors responded. Three of the responses were considered non-responsive since the vendors did not offer dark fiber strands for sale and proposed leased circuits instead. All the other responses were meaningful. The RFI did not require vendors to be able to provide all the stated services. In this way, it will be possible to knit together a composite solution with multiple vendors which is a benefit because of added redundancy. There was considerable variability in the quality and extent of the material provided with the RFI responses. There was also considerable variability in the pricing provided, about a three to one ratio between high and low. Most importantly, the RFI process identified several unexpected vendors who had fiber available in the areas of interest. Without the RFI process, it s likely these vendors would not have been identified. Overall, the pricing proposals were very attractive, generally being less expensive than had been expected. For example, it was learned that some vendors charge for the ongoing operations and maintenance of their fiber based on route mileage irrespective of the number of strands purchased. This has caused interesting design tradeoffs as the cost of buying additional fiber strands along the routes has been weighed against the cost associated with increased multiplexing of optical signals over fewer strands. The partners have been working with the rule of thumb that the overall cost of buying and operating the fiber system should break even within the first five years in order to represent a good return on investment even though it is expected that the system will have a useful life of approximately 20 years. Since this was an RFI, not an RFP, there have been extensive meetings and negotiations with the preferred vendors since the responses were received. Ultimately, this process will lead to the purchase of fiber strands along about 700 route miles. The purchase will Appendix II Page 1

2 be made through a legal instrument known as an IRU, an Indefeasible Right of Use, through which the owner of the fiber cable will convey an irrevocable long-term (probably 20-year) right to use a specific number of strands in its cable. Effectively, title to those strands will be conveyed to the universities in exchange for a one-time fee. Of course, there will ongoing maintenance expenses as there are with many capital purchases. Since strands being purchased via an IRU are part of a larger condominium cable, the cost should be much lower than the cost of new construction which is typically at least $20,000 per route mile and can be much higher in built-up urban areas. A good goal would be to find fiber which is available at an IRU cost (for two strands) that is no more than10% of the cost of new construction. Another goal would be to have yearly operations and maintenance charges be no more than 10% of the IRU cost for two strands of fiber. A copy of the RFI follows. Purpose REQUEST FOR INFORMATION for the Michigan higher education project to design and deploy a facilities-based research and education network This Request for Information (RFI) is issued by the University of Michigan on behalf of its collaborators Michigan State University and Wayne State University (collectively, The Parties ) to solicit information from providers who wish to work with the three universities and possibly other public universities in Michigan to design and deploy facilities-based network infrastructure for research and education. The network infrastructure is intended to link the universities, research centers, schools and other eligible research and education organizations in Michigan with each other and with peer institutions nationally and internationally. It will be designed to utilize the latest technology and transport media available to take advantage of current and emerging technologies and will be designed as a protocol-independent network with virtually unlimited, scalable bandwidth. This RFI deals mainly with the physical layer of the network, i.e., dark fiber and optical amplification as required by The Parties. It is expected that certain segments of the network will use carrier-owned fiber which the universities will use via 20-year Indefeasible Rights of Use (IRUs) while other segments may be built around universityowned dark fiber. Appendix II Page 2

3 Separately, providers are encouraged to propose additional fiber infrastructure and circuits in Lower Michigan, northern Ohio, northern Indiana, and the Chicago area that may be of interest to other public universities and The Parties. This RFI is not intended to limit a potential provider s creativity in suggesting ideas to accomplish the goals of The Parties. All innovative ideas, new concepts and partnership arrangements will be considered and welcomed. Please indicate any other value-added arrangements, unique business features, sponsorship arrangements, special services, discounts or terms and conditions that might suggest solutions to the needs of The Parties. The Parties reserve the right to consider information from potential providers that may be received outside of this RFI process. Background As described in a recent article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education (see universities in a number of states are considering the purchase of dark fiber to meet the bandwidth needs of research and education. This RFI describes infrastructure that is needed between southern Lower Michigan and Chicago to serve the research and educational needs of The Parties, for the needs of the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor, and by other public universities in Lower Michigan. Desired Network Infrastructure The major network infrastructure being sought by The Parties has been divided into two categories. Providers are encouraged to respond to either or both of the following. Southern Lower Michigan and Chicago Fiber Optic Inter-City Infrastructure The Parties seek information about two or more strands of dark or dim fiber on a 20- year IRU basis to provide survivable (diverse path) routes between the following cities: Chicago, Grand Rapids, Lansing/East Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Southfield/Detroit. One possible ring topology would be Chicago - Grand Rapids - Lansing/East Lansing - Ann Arbor - Southfield/Detroit - Chicago. However, The Parties encourage suggestions for other topologies as long as the paths are fully diverse. The Parties intend to provide and manage their own DWDM terminal equipment in each of the named cities and regeneration equipment as needed. They are open to providing and operating their own optical amplification equipment at appropriately spaced collocation points along the provider s fiber system or purchasing, under separate contract, amplification services from the fiber provider or other vendor, i.e., dim fiber. A provider of dim fiber would be fully responsible not only for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the dark fiber strands within the larger sheaf of which they are a part, but also for providing optical amplification at appropriate intervals along the fiber system according specifications provided by The Parties. Appendix II Page 3

4 A provider of dark fiber would be fully responsible not only for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the dark fiber strands within the larger sheaf of which they are a part, but also for providing collocation space at appropriate intervals along the fiber system at which The Parties would install and operate their own optical amplification and regeneration equipment. Individual wavelengths may be used in an exclusive, dedicated manner for high-end research purposes including grid computing and Michigan Life Science Corridor applications as well as for Internet connections to educational/research networks in Chicago and other Internet services. It is not required that a provider be able to offer fiber to all of the named cities, although the use of multiple providers may be less cost effective for The Parties. The Parties intend to use the fiber between all of the named cities initially but would welcome solutions that permit the addition of other cities along the routes (and elsewhere) in the future. Examples would include, but are not limited to, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Jackson, Michigan, Toledo, Ohio and Elkhart, Indiana. Metropolitan and Local Fiber The Parties seek information about acquiring metropolitan dark fiber to interconnect with the southern Lower Michigan and Chicago inter-city fiber. In particular, The Parties are interested in the following locations: Ann Arbor University of Michigan, Arbor Lakes Building, 4251 Plymouth Rd Ann Arbor University of Michigan, Frieze Building, 105 S State St Ann Arbor Michigan Internet Technology Center (under construction), 1000 Oakbrook Dr Ann Arbor Norlight Telecommunications, 220 E Huron St, Suite 290 Byron Center Norlight Telecommunications, th St SW Chicago Starlight, Northwestern University, 710 N Lakeshore Dr Chicago Equinix, 350 E Cermak Rd, 5 th floor Chicago Norlight Telecommunications, 155 N Michigan Ave, Suite 340 Chicago Level 3, 111 N Canal St Dearborn University of Michigan, 4901 Evergreen Detroit Wayne State University, Computing Center, 5925 Woodward Ave East Lansing Michigan State University, Radiology Building, Service Rd just west of Hagadorn Rd Flint University of Michigan, Murchie Science Building, 303 E Kearsley Flint Genesee Intermediate School District, 2415 W Maple Ave Flint McLeodUSA, 4074 S Linden Rd Flint Norlight Telecommunications, 336 W 1 st St, Suite 250 Grand Rapids Grand Valley State University Eberhard Center, 301 W Fulton St Grand Rapids Norlight Telecommunications, 56 Grandville Ave Kalamazoo Western Michigan University, University Computing Services Lansing Norlight Telecommunications, 320 N Washington Sq, Suite 260 Lansing IXC, 240 South St Portage Norlight Telecommunications, 4570 Commercial Dr Appendix II Page 4

5 Rochester Oakland University, Dodge Hall Southfield Norlight Telecommunications, W Nine Mile Rd, Suite 205 It is not required that a provider be able to offer fiber to all these locations or between specific pairs of locations. Without knowing what inter-city fiber provider(s) will ultimately be chosen, it is impossible to specify the exact metropolitan fiber paths The Parties need. Providers should indicate at which locations they have fiber that can be made available to The Parties on an IRU basis together with their pricing methodology. Local maps should be provided. The Parties would prefer to acquire diverse fiber paths, but will consider non-diverse solutions as well. For each location, the response should indicate if a diverse path can be provided. Additional Secondary Services Secondarily, on behalf of the other public universities in Lower Michigan, The Parties separately seek information about dark and dim fiber IRUs, 10 Gbps wavelength services, and SONET and DS-3 circuits to connect other Michigan cities including Big Rapids, Flint, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Midland, Mt Pleasant, Muskegon, and Saginaw. In addition, services to other cities can be proposed at the provider s option. Providers who wish to respond to this section should specify the cities, services and pricing, whether services are sold on an IRU or leased basis, and the terms and conditions. How to respond Responses are invited from any provider or organization with an interest in participating in the proposed Michigan research and education network. Providers may respond to any or all of the items described in the section entitled Desired Network Infrastructure. This RFI is not intended to be highly prescriptive. The Parties welcome innovative ideas and solutions. Regarding the section entitled Desired Network Infrastructure, providers may respond to any or all of the items described and should describe their technical capabilities, relevant experience in providing and operating similar fiber systems, and financial strength. Completely specified engineering is not required at this time. But, respondents should provide descriptions of how they propose to provide the desired network infrastructure. The response should describe how the optical amplification will be done and by whom. Responses should also include maps, specifications of the fiber cable, distances, loss specifications, dispersion specifications including PMD, standards compliance (e.g. ITU- T G.652, ITU-T G.655, etc.), locations of collocation sites, locations of the interconnection points of presence in each of the named cities, and availability of suitable collocation space in each of the named cities and at collocation sites. Responses should also include preliminary pricing for two strands of dark or dim fiber 20-year IRUs, and Appendix II Page 5

6 other relevant pricing such as operation and maintenance fees, collocation fees, and any other fees the provider would expect to charge The Parties. Regarding the section entitled Additional Secondary Services, providers should completely specify the services proposed, where they are available, maps, pricing, and terms. The Parties will likely include other institutions in the evaluation of the proposed secondary services. The Parties are not interested in information about equipment of any kind. It is expected that negotiations will subsequently be conducted with one or more providers, those whom The Parties feel are most clearly able to provide the desired infrastructure. Written responses should be kept brief and to the point. Only one copy need be supplied, not to exceed 15 pages. Do not provide marketing materials. Responses are due by 4:00 p.m. ET on Monday, June 2, 2003 at the following address or by fax or by . is preferred form of response as long as it is restricted to text with Word, Excel, and PDF attachments as needed. XXXXXX XXXXX Organization Address voice fax Questions of clarification on the RFI may be submitted to XXXXXXX at the above address, by phone or by . Appendix II Page 6