Internet and Telephone
4101 Wild Chaparral Drive, Shingle Springs, CA 95682
530-672-1078 ● 844-4CALNET ● http://www.cal.net
28 August 2023
City of Merced
ATTN: Broadband Public-Private Partnership
Jeff Bennyhoff
678 W 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
Re: RFP No. 08282023
Dear Jeff:
Cal.net, Inc. hereby submits its response to the following City of Merce RFP:
Request for Proposal (RFP)
for
Broadband Public-Private Partnership
RFP Number: 08282023
Release Date: 08/04/2023 8:53 AM
Close Date: 08/28/2023 2:00 PM
Based in Shingle Springs, California, Cal.net is a facili�es-based broadband service provider that started business in 1997 serving the communi�es of Davis, Woodland, and western El Dorado County. Cal.net launched its rural fixed-wireless broadband access (“FWBA”) service in early 2006. The company’s fixed- wireless broadband service currently provides broadband Internet access at speeds up to 100/100 Mbps covering an area of over 12,000 square miles throughout parts of twenty-one central-California coun�es, including the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Grass Valley to Groveland and in the Central Valley from Yuba City to just north of Bakersfield. At the �me of this wri�ng, Cal.net is also engaged in two gigabit fiber-to-the-home development projects to serve a new community of about 250 homes in the town of Jamestown and about 60 homes and several community buildings in the Shingle Springs Rancheria, with ini�al gigabit service availability by the end of 2023 for both projects.
As can be seen in our RFP response, the City of Merced is embedded in our exis�ng serve area, and we have services to much of the surrounding rural areas. Extending into the unserved/underserved areas in the City is a natural extension of our mission to provide the best possible broadband service to communi�es in need. If chosen to partner with the City on this par�cular project, Cal.net will be u�lizing local norther-California based subcontractors to trench, lay conduit, and pull fiber.
As will be evident from the material presented herein, Cal.net has the qualifica�ons to perform all services contemplated by this RFP . Beyond the scope of the specific project contemplated by this RFP , Cal.net is certainly willing and capable to build last-mile connec�vity in order to operate and provide services to un- and underserved, disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or low-income areas at affordable rates. To accomplish this, we would u�lize grant funding from the State’s CASF and FFA programs.
However, in order to focus on the successful launch of the main project contemplated by this RFP , we would defer the requisite grant applica�on un�l the opening the next grant applica�on window.
Cal.net looks forward to partnering with the City of Merced on fulfilling its needs regarding the delivery of broadband fiber services to the communi�es iden�fied in the RFP . We will be happy to coordinate with the City during its prepara�on of grant applica�ons during the current FFA applica�on window as well as any future FFA and CASF grants it may contemplate. (As an aside, we recently completed a very similar coordina�on with Kern County on a CASF grant applica�on in which they were the applicant and we were the contractor and service provider.)
Please feel free to reach out to me at any �me – I will be the primary contact for Cal.net.
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
P .O. Box 1041
Shingle Springs, CA 95682
4101 Wild Chapparal Drive
Shingle Springs, CA 95682
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Garnet
________________________________
Chief Strategy Officer, Cal.net, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Phones: 530-350-1839 (office direct)
925-895-1241 (mobile)
530-672-8427 (FAX)
Contents
1) Background of the Proposed Partner(s) .............................................................................................. 4 a. Prior Government Grants and Subsidies ........................................................................................... 4 b. Similar Arrangements with Other Public En��es .............................................................................. 5 c. Company Experience and Capabili�es .............................................................................................. 5 d. Best Prac�ces .................................................................................................................................... 6 e. Project and Grantor Management and Consul�ng ........................................................................... 7 f. Methodologies to Successful Broadband Project Implementa�on .................................................. 7 g. Qualifica�ons of Team ....................................................................................................................... 8 i. Project Management .................................................................................................................... 8 ii. Project Coordinator ....................................................................................................................... 9 iii. Field Opera�ons and Construc�on Manager ................................................................................ 9 2) Financial Health .................................................................................................................................. 10 3) Descrip�on of Proposal and Partnership Arrangement .................................................................... 10 a. Proposed Match Funding ................................................................................................................ 10 b. Proposed Price and Terms for Use of City’s Network ..................................................................... 10 c. Technical Specifica�ons of Privately-Owned Last-Mile Network .................................................... 10 i. Fiber Architecture ....................................................................................................................... 10 ii. Scalability and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 12 iii. Proposed Retail Pricing ............................................................................................................... 12 d. Es�mated Total Construc�on Cost of City’s Conceptual Network Design ...................................... 13 e. An�cipated Construc�on Phasing ................................................................................................... 13 f. Experience in Construc�on of Similar Networks............................................................................. 14 g. Considera�ons for Permi�ng Fees or Expedi�ng Permi�ng Processes ........................................ 14 h. Commitments Needed from City to Ensure Success ....................................................................... 14 i. Poten�al Conflicts of Interest Disclosure ........................................................................................ 15 j. Addi�onal Details, Preferred Arrangements, or Crea�ve Business Models .................................... 15 i. Affordable Connec�vity Program ................................................................................................ 15 ii. Microso� Airband Partnership .................................................................................................... 15 iii. Crea�ve Business Models ........................................................................................................... 16 k. Limita�ons or Opposi�ons in Ability to Meet Requirements.......................................................... 16 4) Third-Party / Subcontractors .............................................................................................................. 17 5) References .......................................................................................................................................... 17 6) Response Matrix ................................................................................................................................. 18 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
1) Background of the Proposed Partner(s)
Cal.net, Inc is a Delaware C corpora�on, in good standing with the States of California and Delaware. The company is a standalone organiza�on, and has no subsidiaries, parent, or affiliates. The company currently has approximately 75 employees, growing steadily from about 45 employees five years ago.
Cal.net is a Compe��ve Local Exchange Carrier (“CLEC”) in the State of California, holding a Cer�ficate of Public Necessity (“CPCN”) # U-7309-C.
Cal.net currently serves scatered areas within Merced County with fixed-wireless service at speeds up to 100 / 20 Mbps down/up – see coverage map in the Appendix. a. Prior Government Grants and Subsidies
Cal.net has successfully competed for and been awarded three different government-subsidized programs:
• California Advanced Services Fund (“CASF”): In 2016, Cal.net was awarded $4.6 million in grant funding by the California Public U�li�es Commission (“CPUC”) for two separate projects covering por�ons of three coun�es in the central Sierra Nevada range. These projects develop broadband infrastructure to serve 9,722 households in 1,039 Census Blocks. One of these projects is completed, and the other is well underway with an an�cipated mid-2024 comple�on. • Connect America Fund II (“CAF2”): In August 2019, Cal.net was awarded $50.5 million by the Federal Communica�ons Commission (“FCC”) to deliver broadband Internet connec�vity at 100- Mbps speeds to 20,859 eligible service loca�ons in 3,559 Census Blocks scatered throughout 26 coun�es in central California, ranging from Redding to Bakersfield and from the western Sierra to the Napa Valley. The first 20% completion milestone was attained in July 2021, five months ahead of the FCC-mandated deadline, as subsequently verified by the Universal Services Administra�on Company (“USAC”). The second 20% milestone was completed in September 2022, again ahead of schedule. Construc�on on the third 20% milestone is underway with comple�on once again expected significantly ahead of the 12/31/23 deadline. Final comple�on of this project is scheduled for the end of 2025. In Merced County, Cal.net is obligated to serve 1,416 loca�ons in 35 Census Block Groups scatered across the County – see map in the Appendix. • NTIA Tribal Broadband Connec�vity Program: In mid-2021, Cal.net partnered with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to compose a $2.7 million grant applica�on to the Na�onal Telecommunica�ons and Informa�on Administra�on (NTIA) to construct a fiber-to-the premises broadband project for all residences and public facili�es on the grounds of the Shingle Springs Rancheria. Cal.net contributed the engineering design, cost projec�ons, and construc�on schedule for this fiber-to-the-premises network. The NTIA awarded this grant in December 2022, and construc�on is currently underway. Target comple�on date is December 2023.
Cal.net is the prime contractor for both the construc�on and opera�on of this network.
b. Similar Arrangements with Other Public En��es
Cal.net is currently engaged in a one-year public-private partnership project with Madera County to deploy four fixed-wireless tower sites to serve five unserved low-income communi�es in the county with 100/20 Mbps broadband service. The project commenced in April 2023.
Contact: Anthony Loza, Division Director of General Services, (559) 675-7703 Cal.net is currently engaged in a one-year public-private partnership project with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to deploy gigabit fiber-to-the-premises to all residents and several tribal facili�es within the Shingle Springs Rancheria. The project commenced in January 2023.
Contact: David A. Murray, Direct Assistant to the Chairwoman, (530) 698-1471 Cal.net worked with Kern County earlier this year to submit a CASF Infrastructure Grant Account grant applica�on to deliver 100 / 20 Mbps service to the en�re town of Lost Hills. This was a public-private partnership with the County owning the infrastructure and Cal.net construc�ng it and ac�ng as the service provider upon comple�on. The applica�on was submited to the CPUC in May 2023 and is s�ll pending their review.
Contact: Jason Wiebe, Chief Strategic Ini�a�ves Officer, 661-332-8329 Cal.net was retained by the Placerville Police Department to deploy downtown Internet connec�vity for surveillance cameras and security. The project was completed in February 2017.
Contact: Jason Tanger, Director of I.T., 530-642-5524
c. Company Experience and Capabili�es
As a local California business, Cal.net has in�mate knowledge of state and local laws and regula�ons. In many of the communi�es we serve, we have long-term personal rela�onships with both municipal and county officials, along with local business leaders, who have been suppor�ve of our efforts. As a California CLEC (Compe��ve Local Exchange Carrier), we are very familiar with the State telecommunica�ons regula�ons, and the requirements of CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act), having completed many CEQA-approved projects.
Cal.net is extremely conscien�ous of employing and adhering to safety and training regimens and regula�ons. In fact, we have an OSHA-cer�fied tower climbing & rescue trainer on our staff. Our in- house training programs comprise:
• Fiber Splicing
• Structured Cabling
• Telecommunica�ons Low Voltage
• Troubleshoo�ng with OSI Mode
Among the various external cer�fica�on & qualifica�on training programs we u�lize are:
• OSHA 30
• OSHA 10
• 1st Aid CPR
• Aerial Li� Training
• Tower Climbing and Rescue
• Advanced Tower Climbing & Rescue
• Competent Rigger Cer�fica�on
• Forkli� Operator
Internet and Telephone
4101 Wild Chaparral Drive, Shingle Springs, CA 95682
530-672-1078 ● 844-4CALNET ● http://www.cal.net
The photos below illustrate two examples of our staff installing broadband infrastructure components.
Our crew at work on a project to deliver
redundant fiber to the Red Hawk Casino in
Shingle Springs.
One of our crewmembers deploying new fixed
wireless service to an area, showing examples of
a sector antenna that serves customers and a
microwave antenna that connects to the Internet.
For opera�on of the network, the following factors are
per�nent, and are conducted in-house with the
engineers in our Network Opera�ons Center (“NOC” –
see photo at le�):
• Monitoring the network traffic, the equipment,
the radio links, and potential environmental issues
• Items to measure include traffic volume,
latency, jiter, radio signal strength, radio signal/noise ra�o, cabinet temperature, power status, generator fuel level, generator weekly exercise results.
d. Best Prac�ces
Cal.net employs an in-house Network Opera�ons Center (“NOC”) to monitor the performance of all aspects of our network. Through this mechanism, we can determine areas of the network that are experiencing subop�mal performance, and proac�vely address media�on measures before they become serious customer issues. In the event of sudden acute occurrences, such as weather-related events, our NOC staff can immediately react and dispatch service technicians to remediate.
We also have a dedicated engineering team solely focused on upgrades. We con�nually evaluate components of our network that are approaching their service life and design the implementa�on of replacement components.
e. Project and Grantor Management and Consul�ng
Cal.net, Inc. u�lizes a blend of agile and waterfall project management methodologies to ensure on-�me and on-budget comple�on of projects. Agile methodology, employed during the early stages, promotes flexibility, adaptability, and collabora�on, focusing on itera�ve development and quick adjustments to accommodate changing requirements. This reduces risks and improves produc�vity and stakeholder sa�sfac�on during the planning and design stages. In contrast, the waterfall methodology is applied during the construc�on phase, offering a linear, structured approach with dis�nct stages from requirements gathering to deployment. This provides predictability essen�al for precise planning, coordina�on, and resource management in construc�on. By integra�ng these methodologies, Cal.net, Inc. balances flexibility and structure, with agile fostering effec�ve early-stage collabora�on and responsiveness, and waterfall ensuring disciplined execu�on during construc�on.
As has been described elsewhere herein, we have worked closely with a number of governmental en��es to deliver services to their cons�tuents. Our process has been, and will con�nue to be, one of close coopera�on and mul�ple interac�ons with all primary stakeholders, including the requirements stage, the design stage, the construc�on stage, and the service stage. Our best example of this is our work with the Shingle Springs Rancheria, where we had to coordinate every step of the project with the NTIA (Na�onal Telecommunica�ons and Informa�on Administra�on) to be allowed to proceed to the next phase of the project.
With regard to determining the service needs and exis�ng broadband capabili�es of the communi�es in ques�on, both the California Public U�li�es Commission and the Federal Communica�ons Commission have data available through their individual broadband data collec�on efforts to assist in that determina�on. Addi�onally, as we have done in the past for our CASF grants, we can do drive tes�ng to evaluate the capabili�es of mobile wireless connec�vity. Lastly, we can leverage our marke�ng department to survey residents in these areas, inquiring about their current experience.
f. Methodologies to Successful Broadband Project Implementa�on Cal.net, Inc. ensures consistent on-�me and on-budget comple�on of projects, by u�lizing a combina�on of agile and waterfall project management methodologies can. By leveraging the strengths of both approaches, Cal.net, Inc. can effec�vely manage their projects from incep�on to comple�on.
Agile methodology, known for its flexibility and adaptability, is typically employed during the early phases of a project, par�cularly in the engineering team. It focuses on itera�ve and incremental development, allowing for quick adjustments and con�nuous improvement. Agile fosters collabora�on, frequent communica�on, and stakeholder involvement, allowing teams to respond swi�ly to changing requirements or priori�es. This approach helps in reducing risks, improving team produc�vity, and enhancing stakeholder sa�sfac�on during the planning and design stages.
On the other hand, the waterfall methodology is o�en employed during the construc�on phase of Cal.net, Inc. projects. Waterfall is a linear and sequen�al approach that follows a fixed plan and predefined phases. This methodology involves clear and dis�nct stages, such as requirements gathering, design, implementa�on, tes�ng, and deployment. Each phase has specific deliverables, and progress is measured before proceeding to the next phase. Waterfall provides structure and predictability, which is crucial in construc�on ac�vi�es where precise planning, coordina�on, and resource management are essen�al for success.
By integra�ng agile and waterfall methodologies, Cal.net, Inc. can achieve consistent on-�me and on- budget comple�on of their projects. The agile approach allows for early detec�on of poten�al issues and promotes collabora�on, ensuring accurate project requirements and design. The use of agile methodologies during the ini�al stages helps in iden�fying and addressing risks, thereby minimizing delays and cost overruns.
Once the project transi�ons to the construc�on phase, the waterfall methodology can be employed to provide a structured framework for execu�on. By following a predefined plan and sequence of ac�vi�es, the construc�on team can effec�vely manage resources, control costs, and meet project milestones. The linear nature of the waterfall methodology helps in maintaining project discipline, adhering to schedules, and mi�ga�ng risks associated with construc�on ac�vi�es.
Overall, by combining agile and waterfall project management methodologies, Cal.net, Inc is able to achieve a balance between flexibility and structure, enabling consistent on-�me and on-budget comple�on of our projects. The agile approach facilitates effec�ve collabora�on and responsiveness during the early stages, while the waterfall approach ensures disciplined execu�on during the construc�on phase.
g. Qualifica�ons of Team
Cal.net has a very experienced team with mul�ple years tenure at the company. Our project manager, Daniell Apodaca, has successfully led and managed mul�ple construc�on and telecom projects, ensuring they were delivered within budget and schedule. She has collaborated with various teams, including engineers, contractors, architects, and vendors, to coordinate project ac�vi�es and ensure alignment with project goals. Her Project Coordinator, Travis Bernard, handles crea�ng project plans, se�ng deadlines, alloca�ng resources, and tracking progress. Together, the two of them work closely with outside agencies and stakeholders, such as permi�ng agencies, including design/build presenta�ons and mee�ngs with all project principals. As but one example, their close communica�on with the Shingle Springs Rancheria resulted in a successful shepherding of that project through the design and en�tlement stages, and they are now overseeing the construc�on of the network. i. Project Management
Danielle Apodaca is a Project Manager with four years of experience at Cal.net. In her role, she has successfully led and managed mul�ple construc�on and telecom projects, ensuring they were delivered within budget and schedule. She has collaborated with various teams, including engineers, contractors, architects, and vendors, to coordinate project ac�vi�es and ensure alignment with project goals.
Danielle is responsible for developing and maintaining project schedules, budgets, and resource alloca�on plans to ensure effec�ve project execu�on. She has also prepared and presented progress reports, project updates, and financial analysis to senior management and stakeholders.
As a proac�ve project manager, Danielle iden�fies poten�al risks and implements mi�ga�on strategies to minimize project delays and cost overruns. She oversees procurement ac�vi�es, including bidding processes, contract nego�a�ons, and vendor selec�on, ensuring compe��ve pricing and adherence to project specifica�ons.
Danielle maintains effec�ve communica�on channels with clients, addressing their concerns and ensuring customer sa�sfac�on throughout the project. Addi�onally, she is responsible for managing project documenta�on, including contracts, permits, change orders, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
ii. Project Coordinator
Travis Barnard is a Project Coordinator and has been working with Cal.net for 5 years. He first started out as a Tower Climber maintaining and upgrading Cal.net towers. He then moved into project coordinator role for the past two years. Travis’ roles involve overseeing and coordina�ng various aspects of a project to ensure its successful comple�on. It can be a demanding role that requires strong organiza�onal skills, aten�on to detail, and effec�ve communica�on.
During Travis's two years as a project coordinator, he has gained valuable experience in project management, such as crea�ng project plans, se�ng deadlines, alloca�ng resources, and tracking progress. He has also collaborated with team members, stakeholders, and clients to ensure everyone is on the same page and the project is progressing smoothly. Overall, working as a project coordinator for two years is a significant milestone, and Travis has built a solid founda�on for a successful career in project management or other related fields.
iii. Field Opera�ons and Construc�on Manager
Corey Mitchell, an experienced professional with 5 years of exper�se in the WISP/telecom industry, serves as the Field Opera�ons and Construc�on Manager. In this role, Corey effec�vely plans, coordinates, organizes, oversees, and directs all ac�vi�es related to the construc�on and maintenance of designated structures, facili�es, and systems.
Corey's primary responsibility is ensuring strict adherence to safety standards and guidelines on the jobsite, guaranteeing that all construc�on work meets the necessary safety codes. Through diligent supervision, Corey promotes a safe and secure working environment.
Corey ac�vely collaborates with clients, supervisory staff, contractors, and design professionals throughout the construc�on process. By fostering open lines of communica�on, Corey facilitates the discussion and resolu�on of various challenges, including work procedures, complaints, and construc�on or design issues. In the face of delays, inclement weather, or emergencies at construc�on sites, Corey takes decisive leadership ac�ons to mi�gate any adverse impact.
Corey Mitchell assumes a crucial role as the Field Opera�ons and Construc�on Manager, bringing extensive experience and exper�se to ensure the successful execu�on of construc�on projects while priori�zing safety and maintaining effec�ve collabora�on among key stakeholders.
2) Financial Health
Cal.net is in sound financial condi�on. The company undergoes a full financial audit every year and has always received a sound report with no nega�ve indica�ons. Cal.net has no current or recent dispute or legal ac�on that might impact our ability to perform.
3) Descrip�on of Proposal and Partnership Arrangement
a. Proposed Match Funding
Un�l the accurate costs of the City’s conceptual network design are determined in sufficient detail to be presented in the FFA grant applica�on, it would be premature to propose a specific matching level for Cal.net. We understand that matching funds are an important scoring criterion for the CPUC, and that the combined total match among the City, Cal.net, and poten�ally others should be of sufficient amount to achieve an acceptable score. We will contribute both cash and in-kind contribu�ons toward the matching funds, but un�l more detailed design is undertaken, we do not have enough informa�on at this point to make a determina�on on the proper alloca�on.
b. Proposed Price and Terms for Use of City’s Network
Cal.net understands the City of Merced desires some form of payment for using city assets. Although this is a reasonable request, we believe it is premature to suggest pricing in this response. If chosen by the City as a partner in this ini�a�ve, we will work with the City to determine a fair exchange for both the City and Cal.net, informed by common prac�ce in the industry elsewhere in California. c. Technical Specifica�ons of Privately-Owned Last-Mile Network It is our understanding that the City’s en�re conceptual network design is to be City-owned, including any laterals needed to reach the projected 876 service loca�ons specified in the RFP . It is not clear whether the service drops to each loca�on are intended to by City-owned. The clarifica�on of this point will, by the way, inform the determina�on of our level of matching funds, as discussed above.
We do understand that any future network that we build to pass the remaining 11,719 loca�ons the City has iden�fied within a 750-foot buffer zone of the propose City network will be owned by Cal.net. We will not be including this larger project as part of any work to be specified in the current FFA applica�on window. This is a much larger and more complex effort, and will take significantly longer than the �me we have remaining in the current FFA cycle to be adequately specified. Accordingly, we consider that to be a “Phase 2” project suitable for the next FFA applica�on window. Nevertheless, we provide the following conceptual overview of our engineering design principles. i. Fiber Architecture
Cal.Net offers fiber delivered internet using Passive Op�cal Network (PON) technology comprising one or more Op�cal Line Termina�on (OLT) chassis which connects a PON to customer homes using Gigabit
Ethernet PON (GPON1) and/or 10 Gigabit Ethernet Symmetrical PON (XGS-PON2). The ini�al deployment would u�lize the GPON standard, allowing for 2.5/1.24G Down/Up speeds aggregate per PON port. This could be upgraded in the future to XGS-PON allowing for 10/10G Down/Up speeds aggregate per PON port. The OLT chassis has uplinks to Cal.net geographically redundant datacenters with mul�ple internet peers, using dedicated fiber transport or licensed microwave wireless transport. The nodes would be deployed in cabinets where the middle-mile backhaul interconnects. From these nodes, Cal.net would construct predominately underground fiber plant. 1:32 spliters collocated with the OLT each serve a cluster of served loca�ons, what we term Fiber Service Areas (“FSAs”). Remote spliters can be placed at a later date to increase the number of homes by up to 32x the ini�al build.
Both GPON and XGS-PON may coexist on the same fiber using course wave division multiplexing (CWDM).
Cal.net uses CWDM muxes, demuxes, filters, and passive splitters and combiners to implement a fiber network designed to serve current customers, with the ability to scale the network and grow to serve future customers as well. This architecture enables the lowest possible latency on round trips to the Internet.
Each GPON op�cal transmiter in the OLT feeds a 32x1 op�cal spliter which can serve up to 32 homes (expandable to 128 homes per transmiter), at an aggregate download throughput of 2.4Gbps, and upload throughput of 1.2Gbps. Each XGS-op�cal transmiter is similar but supports up to 10Gbps symmetrical aggregate throughput. Homes may be moved from one FSA spliter to another to ensure sufficient capacity is available for all subscribers. Distances within the proposed network should require no greater than Class C+ op�cs, allowing for distances up to 60 km between the OLT and any subscriber.
Depending on the density of structures, handholes may be placed along the fiber route in a variety of configura�ons from one per structure to four structures per handhole. At the customer premise, Cal.Net provides a standard Op�cal Network Terminal (ONT) which connects to the PON, as well as a home gateway. The ONT provides telemetry which helps indicate the health of the op�cal signal, and when combined with topological details can help isolate fiber cuts. The home gateway provides in-home wireless networking, and also provides remote telemetry including periodic speed tes�ng.
Vendors providing solu�ons for GPON and XGS-PON include (but are not limited to) Adtran 3, Calix4,
Nokia5, and Sumitomo6.
In each of the top three priority project loca�ons (discussed below), the Statewide Middle Mile Broadband Ini�a�ve (MMBI) fiber project is slated to pass through those communi�es. Cal.net will interconnect with the MMBI network in at least two places in each community. For addi�onal redundancy, Cal.net would propose a 5-Gbps microwave backhaul, feeding off its current network, for last-resort failover capability.
1 https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.984.5
2 https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9807.1
3 https://investors.adtran.com/news-and-events/press-release-details/2021/ADTRANs-Combo-PON-Technology- Supercharges-Multigigabit-Broadband-Adoption-for-Operators-Worldwide/default.aspx 4 https://www.calix.com/press-release/2021/11--november-/the-latest-xgs-pon-capabilities-from-calix-help- service-provider.html
5 https://www.nokia.com/about-us/news/releases/2022/05/24/nokia-announces-shipment-of-15-millionth- quillion-powered-pon-port-for-broadband-fiber-nodes/
6 https://sumitomoelectriclightwave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FSU7100.pdf
ii. Scalability and Reliability
The networks that will be constructed will be robust and resistant to failure, as well as being scalable to meet future demand. By having mul�ple interconnected rings, fiber nodes will always have two or more paths to the Internet. For each ring, the distribu�on network to the core will be dual-homed to the Internet Exchange Centers in San Jose and Sacramento, where we have presence. At all nodes, Cal.Net is on commercial power, 8-hour batery backup, and failover generator power. In the event of a sustained power outage, Cal.Net can power its facili�es indefinitely provided fuel is available. Each of Cal.Net’s routers, switches, and OLTs has redundant power supplies for failover condi�ons. Our field crew can respond to and correct most outages, wherever they may be, in less than eight hours.
Scalability is also supported by the network architecture. Due to the multiple interconnected ring aspect, we can redirect increased traffic flow on one segment through other segments that have unused overhead capacity. For fiber networks, the upgrade paths available on a passive optical architecture today include both NG PON2 and XGS PON which could be employed by simply changing out electronics on one or both ends of a connection, supporting up to sixteen 10 Gbps connections on the same strand using DWDM wavelengths, without impact to current subscribers. The proposed distributed split model allows for flexibility when upgrades become necessary. A final option is to add more fiber connection points to the Internet – there are, and will be, many accessible fiber facilities throughout large portions of our service area.
General reliability is assured by the funding rules requiring speed test reporting
7. Another reliability
feature is our Network Operations Center (“NOC”), which keeps tabs on all aspects of our networks, automatically identifies and alerts staff to operational issues, and provides insight on performance trend lines. This facility helps us identify and respond to issues very quickly. iii. Proposed Retail Pricing
In addition to the table below, Cal.net also offers interconnected VoIP service providing unlimited nationwide residential calling for under $30 a month.
Package
Name Speeds List Price CALEA
Silver
Protect
(Optional)
WiFi
Router
Total
Monthly
ACP
Discount
Total
with
ACP
Merced
Fiber 10
10 / 10
Mbps $30.00 $2.97 $2.07 $4.95 $39.99 $30.00 $9.99
Merced
Fiber 25
25 / 25
Mbps $50.12 $2.97 $6.95 $4.95 $64.99 $30.00 $34.99
Merced
Fiber 50
50 / 50
Mbps $80.12 $2.97 $6.95 $4.95 $94.99 $30.00 $64.99
Merced
Fiber 100
100 / 100
Mbps $95.12 $2.97 $6.95 $4.95 $109.99 $30.00 $79.99
Merced
Fiber 1G
1000 / 500
Mbps $139.12 $2.97 $6.95 $4.95 $153.99 $30.00 $123.99
7 Rulemaking 20-09-001, Decision 22-04-055 April 21, 2022, page A25
d. Es�mated Total Construc�on Cost of City’s Conceptual Network Design While it is imprac�cal to develop a detailed cost model in the compressed timeframe for this RFP response, a generalized approach can be reasonably undertaken. Inspection of the proposed 876 locations for this Phase 1 project reveals that only about 10% of those locations are directly on the proposed main network, whereas the remainder will require short laterals to reach. We also model a 70% subscriber take rate on our network drops for deriving our total cost for that component. Lastly we assume boring for all parts of the network. If micro-trenching was acceptable everywhere, the cost would be about 40% lower. Accordingly, informed by other community-wide fiber projects of which Cal.net has undertaken, we base our cost model on the following:
• Network build, cost per passing $4,840
o Total cost for 788 passings (90% of the 876 loca�ons) $ 3,813,920 • Cost per subscriber network drop $3,080
o Total cost (70% of 876 loca�ons) $ 1,888,040
• Mainline cost per foot, excluding drops $ 162
o Total cost (52,750 feet) $ 8,545,500
• Total Overall Cost $ 14,247,460
e. An�cipated Construc�on Phasing
Cal.net expects that the en�re project will be CEQA-exempt, as it will lie en�rely within exis�ng rights of way. Accordingly we an�cipate easily accommoda�ng a deployment schedule of around 18 months. In our experience with other community fiber builds, the following is a reasonable schedule projec�on:
Ac�vity Q0 – Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Feasibility study X
Preliminary OSP engineering X
Verify exis�ng infrastructure X X
Permi�ng, other en�tlement approvals X
OSP construc�on, mainline X X X
OSP construc�on, lateral X X
OSP construc�on, drops X X
OSP construc�on, splicing X X X X
Tie-in to the statewide MMBI network X
OLT/head-end turn-up X
Begin customer provisioning X
Month 0 - 3: Objec�ve – Launch the project
Outcomes:
1) Cal.net in conjunc�on stakeholders will assess feasibility with a thorough review of engineering documents and detail exis�ng infrastructure
2) Permits approved
3) Mainline construc�on begins
Month 4 - 6: Objec�ve – Broadband Infrastructure Deployment project con�nues Outcomes:
1) On-going construc�on, mainline, lateral, and splicing will con�nue within the community
Month 7 - 9: Objec�ve – Broadband Infrastructure Deployment project con�nues Outcomes:
1. On-going construc�on, mainline, lateral, splicing, and drops
Month 10 - 12: Objec�ve – Final construc�on phase of Broadband Infrastructure Deployment project Outcomes:
1. Final construc�on drops and splicing
2. OLT/head-end turnup
3. Customer provisioning
f. Experience in Construc�on of Similar Networks
As men�oned elsewhere in this document, Cal.net is currently construc�ng a fiber-to-the-premises network for the Shingle Springs Rancheria. The project will be completed by the end of 2023. Cal.net has also recently commenced a greenfield fiber-to-the-home project for a 240-home new housing development in Jamestown, California. This is a phased housing development, the first por�on of which will be completed this year, and the remainder in 2024.
g. Considera�ons for Permi�ng Fees or Expedi�ng Permi�ng Processes The costs noted above include the an�cipated permi�ng fees. We expect to work in partnership with the City to find ways to accelerate the permi�ng process.
h. Commitments Needed from City to Ensure Success
Cal.net expects to partner with the City in the truest sense of the word. Beyond the assistance in expedi�ng permi�ng noted above, the following ac�vi�es in which the City could par�cipate would be highly beneficial:
• Joint press releases announcing the commencement of development (a�er CPCU grant approval) • Direct no�fica�on of all property owner along the network route, and separately of all 876 ini�al loca�ons to be serviced
• Joint mee�ngs with City (and maybe also County) Economic Development agencies to determine community needs and opportuni�es within the area of the proposed network • Assistance with se�ng up digital literacy training and adop�on programs, and assistance with connec�ng to community groups, non-profit and community based organiza�ons • Ensure that electrical u�lity power can be made available where needed for electronic field components
• Work together to iden�fy parts of the network where micro-trenching can be an acceptable alterna�ve to subsurface boring, in order to substan�ally reduce the total cost
i. Poten�al Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
Cal.net has no conflicts of interest which would affect this project in any manner.
j. Addi�onal Details, Preferred Arrangements, or Crea�ve Business Models i. Affordable Connec�vity Program
Cal.net is a par�cipant in the federal Affordable Connec�vity Program (“ACP”), which subsidizes broadband service for qualified low-income residents. Through this program, Cal.net can offer broadband service to low-income residents for as litle as $9.95/month, and in combina�on with its Microso� partnership (see below), can offer its ACP subscribers a fully-func�onal computer, laptop, or tablet for as litle as a one-�me cost of $10. ISP par�cipa�on in the federal ACP program requires state CLEC status, and Cal.net has the required cer�fica�on.
Cal.net is in the process of comple�ng its applica�on to the CPUC for authoriza�on to offer state and federal Lifeline services in California. Once approved, we will be able to offer low-income residents discounted voice services and further discounted broadband services.
With regard to stakeholder repor�ng, we will forward all required CPUC reports to designated City of Merced officials. Should custom reports be requested, we will work with the stakeholders to determine their needs. Cal.net will also conform to the SLFRF Compliance and Repor�ng Guidance.
Cal.net will conform to all CPUC FFA pricing requirements, including maintenance of ini�al price over an extended period, no installa�on fees, and low-cost plans. ii. Microso� Airband Partnership
Cal.net is the only Internet Service Provider in California that is a Microsoft Airband Initiative partner8.
Through this program, Microsoft has developed a strategic approach that brings together private and public sector organizations to help address the broadband gap and aims to extend broadband access to millions of people living in rural America. Through our exclusive Airband partnership, Cal.net offers a variety of services for the benefit of rural and other underserved communities including upskilling and entrepreneurial training, digital literacy programming, telehealth, distance learning and precision agriculture. Cal.net is authorized to provide these Airband resources at no cost, which are available to all organizational Cal.net customers, including businesses, non-profits, schools, community groups, government entities, and tribal entities (customers of other ISPs must pay full retail for of these services).
To ensure that newly served areas that receive cri�cal broadband access are also provided ready access to skills training programs to learn how to use technology effec�vely, Microso� offers a White Glove
8 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/airband-initiative
Service Program9 to government, business and school customers. The White Glove Service Program provides access to free workforce development training led by staff from the Microso� Store on using any Microso� product, including devices and so�ware programs such as Microso� Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, Power BI and several others. The Microso� Store Team also provides service and support for all Microso� devices. Again, all of this is available at no cost only to Cal.net customers.
Inclusive in this pla�orm is a full spectrum of digital skills training programs for all age groups and learning levels. The online training programs include a basic digital literacy course which is used by individuals, nonprofits, schools, and governments all over the world, as well as courses on online safety, coding with Minecra�, learning computer science, mastering Microso� Office programs, and learning skills for employability via LinkedIn skills for in-demand jobs, where one can also learn how to search and apply for jobs and prepare for interviews.
To address the needs of the low-income community, Cal.net offers Personal Computer devices to qualified families at extreme discounts. Refurbished PCs are available to Cal.net customers for $120 and laptops for $150 through Microso�’s partner “PCs for People”. Combined with the Affordable Connec�vity Program (“ACP”), which offers $100 discounts on hardware, this means a low-income family can obtain their own highly capable computer for as litle as $20. Then, to get online, we can combine our $40 per month entry-level broadband service with the ACP $30 monthly low-income subsidy to offer Internet services as low as $10 per month.
iii. Crea�ve Business Models
Cal.net has engaged with Madera County in a unique partnership arrangement as a supplement to our previously noted network construc�on and opera�on agreement with them. In this extended partnership, we join forces to assist low-income families to afford broadband service more easily. We would like to suggest a similar low-income subsidy arrangement with the City of Merced.
In this concept, eligible households for the addi�onal joint City/Cal.net subsidy would be only those who can qualify for the federal ACP subsidy. Subject to the availability of City funds, the City would pay for (1) the interior router which provides Wi-Fi, and (2) for internet access monthly fees. The monthly City subsidy would either be $10 or $20, depending on the subscriber’s speed package. Cal.net will provide a subsidy match for as long as the City has funds available to con�nue doing so.
k. Limita�ons or Opposi�ons in Ability to Meet Requirements The primary concern is supply-chain availability. With likely hundreds of millions of dollars of FFA fiber projects being approved simultaneously early next year, the ability to source fiber, conduit, and electronic components may become a concern. Suitable proac�ve con�ngent vendor orders can help mi�gate that issue, but there is no guarantee that some suppliers may s�ll face difficulty mee�ng demand.
9 See the following for details on the White Glove program:
https://www.cal.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Microsoft-White-Glove-Service-Business-Catalog.pdf https://www.cal.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Microsoft-White-Glove-Service-Education-Catalog.pdf
4) Third-Party / Subcontractors
Congruex
Rigo Santos, Director of Opera�ons Northern California
Ph: 909-815-3892
Congruex scope of work is to pull all fiber in exis�ng back bone conduit along with trenching lateral intercept points to connect to the backbone infrastructure. Congruex will also place all handholes to our standard depth and required backfill regula�ons by the city. Congruex will also fix all asphalt and backfill by county specs.
Impact Solution Industries
Zack Baldwin, Owner
Ph: 530-557-0071
Impact Solu�ons trenches all service loca�on from hand hole to customer’s house and place a 1” conduit in the trench and use sand or remaining dirt to backfill and level. Impact solu�ons will also replace any concrete / asphalt by county specs.
North Sky Communications - Golden State Utility
Rodney Kuenzi - President
Ph: 360-254-6920, 503-209-6603
Golden State U�lity provides every aspect of the project from ini�al engineering to final splices and tes�ng at end user loca�ons.
5) References
See Sec�on 1.b. (page 5) for more details.
Madera County
Contact: Anthony Loza, Division Director of General Services, (559) 675-7703 Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
Contact: David A. Murray, Direct Assistant to the Chairwoman, (530) 698-1471 Kern County
Contact: Jason Wiebe, Chief Strategic Ini�a�ves Officer, 661-332-8329 Valley Vision
Contacts; Krag Brotby, Partner, Ph: 209-822-1011
Ron Kopf, Project Manager, Ph: 209-743-6193
Placerville Police Department
Contact: Jason Tanger, Director of I.T., 530-642-5524
6) Response Matrix
A. Cover Letter (Items 1-5) Provided elsewhere in this document A.1 company introduction Provided elsewhere in this document A.2 Why the respondent is
interested
Provided elsewhere in this document
A.3 partner with the City on
grant applications
Provided elsewhere in this document
A.4 willing and capable to
build last- mile connectivity
Provided elsewhere in this document
B. Table of Contents Provided elsewhere in this document C. Background (Items 1-7) Provided elsewhere in this document C.1 Company’s knowledge,
years of experience
Provided elsewhere in this document
C.2 Provide details\resumes
on key expertise\key
personnel
Provided elsewhere in this document
C.3 List any licenses,
registrations, or
certifications
Provided elsewhere in this document
C.4 overview of company’s
assets
Provided elsewhere in this document
C.5 similar arrangements Provided elsewhere in this document C.6 List any litigation or
disputes
Provided elsewhere in this document
C.7 Any installation, sub-
contractors, partners
Provided elsewhere in this document
D. Financial Health Provided elsewhere in this document E. Description of Proposal
and Partnership
Arrangement
Provided elsewhere in this document
E . 1 proposed match
funding
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.2 Price & Terms Provided elsewhere in this document
E.3 Technical specifications Provided elsewhere in this document E.4 Estimated total
construction cost
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.5 Description of
anticipated construction
phasing
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.6 Expertise/experience in
construction of similar
networks
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.7 permitting Provided elsewhere in this document
E.8 requirements or
commitments
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.9 conflicts of interest
disclosure
Provided elsewhere in this document
E.10 business models Provided elsewhere in this document E.11 limitations or
oppositions
Provided elsewhere in this document
F. Third-Party /
Subcontractors (Items1-3)
Provided elsewhere in this document
F.1 Respondent’s
experience with each of
the proposed
subcontractors
Provided elsewhere in this document
F.2 Three (3) customer
references for each
subcontractor
Provided elsewhere in this document
F.3 Describe the specific
role of each
Provided elsewhere in this document
G. References (Items 1-2) Provided elsewhere in this document G.1 three (3) references of
existing partners,
municipalities
Provided elsewhere in this document
G.2 (3) industry references Provided elsewhere in this document H. Response Matrix –
Proposal specifics
Provided elsewhere in this document
Estimated total cost for
publicly owned fiber optic
network expansion project
(Phase 1)
Provided elsewhere in this document
Proposed match funding
for public project
Provided elsewhere in this document
Proposed in-kind
contribution including any
alternative designs utilizing
private assets
Provided elsewhere in this document
Estimated dollar value of
in-kind contribution
Provided elsewhere in this document
Proposed privately- funded
last-mile distribution build
to unserved and/or
Provided elsewhere in this document
disadvantaged areas
Estimated cost of privately-
funded last-mile
distribution build to
unserved and/or
disadvantaged areas
Provided elsewhere in this document
Proposed service offerings
for retail internet & data
services
Provided elsewhere in this document
Proposed Price & Terms in
Exchange for Rights to Sell
Services over City Network
Provided elsewhere in this document
Requirements from the
City
Provided elsewhere in this document
Other Benefits to the City Provided elsewhere in this document
Appendix
Current Cal.net Fixed-Wireless Coverage – Green Area
Cal.net CAF-II Coverage Obliga�ons – Green Areas