fibernet master plan - montgomerycountymd.gov · originally built over fiber plant that the...

FiberNet Master Plan

Prepared for Montgomery County, Maryland by CTC Technology & Energy

Initial Release December 2017

Updated March 2018

FiberNet Master Plan | Updated March 2018

ii

Contents1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 FiberNet’s Value to the County ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 FiberNet’s Current Services .............................................................................................. 3

1.3 FiberNet Sites to Be Added .............................................................................................. 4

1.4 FiberNet Improvements in Process .................................................................................. 4

1.5 Recommendations for Future FiberNet Operations ........................................................ 4

2 Keys to Continued Success: Value of FiberNet ....................................................................... 6

2.1 FiberNet History ............................................................................................................... 6

2.2 FiberNet Must Retain Control of Its Infrastructure and Operations................................ 7

3 Future Needs ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 User Site Additions ........................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Interagency Support and Collaboration ........................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Montgomery County Public Schools .................................................................. 11

3.2.2 Montgomery College ......................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Maryland–National Park and Planning Commission ......................................... 16

3.2.4 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission .................................................... 19

3.2.5 Housing Opportunities Commission .................................................................. 21

3.2.6 Montgomery County Government & Department of Technology .................... 23

3.3 ultraMontgomery and Broadband Roadmap ................................................................. 25

3.3.1 ultraMontgomery .............................................................................................. 26

3.3.2 Broadband Roadmap ......................................................................................... 26

3.4 Current and Future Initiatives Requiring FiberNet Support ........................................... 26

4 FiberNet Operations ............................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Summary of Prior Master Plans ..................................................................................... 31

4.2 FiberNet Organizational Study ....................................................................................... 32

4.2.1 Governance ........................................................................................................ 32

4.2.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 34

4.3 DTS Organizational Realignment .................................................................................... 35


iii

4.4 FiberNet—Current Staffing Levels ................................................................................. 36

4.5 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................... 37

4.5.1 Guidelines for Establishing KPIs ......................................................................... 37

4.5.2 Classification of Project Status ........................................................................... 39

4.5.3 Project Management Systems and Methodologies ........................................... 40

4.5.4 Tools for Evaluating KPIs .................................................................................... 42

4.6 Status of Physical Infrastructure Remediation, Upgrades, and Additions ..................... 46

4.6.1 Hub Remediation ............................................................................................... 46

4.6.2 Feeder Fiber Expansion ...................................................................................... 49

4.6.3 Maximizing the Value of Existing Infrastructure ............................................... 51

4.6.4 Documentation Process—Physical Layer ........................................................... 53

4.7 FiberNet Service Description .......................................................................................... 55

4.7.1 FiberNet I Services ............................................................................................. 55

4.7.2 FiberNet II Services ............................................................................................ 56

4.7.3 FiberNet II.v Services .......................................................................................... 59

4.8 FiberNet Optical Technology Migration (FiberNet III) ................................................... 63

Appendix A1: Candidate FiberNet 3.0 Network Electronics Architecture – IP/MPLS Backbone . 67

Appendix A2: Candidate FiberNet 3.0 Network Electronics Architecture – Optical Backbone.... 68

Appendix B: Candidate FiberNet 3.0 Network Electronics Architecture – Equipment BOM ....... 69

Appendix C: Consolidated Site Addition List with Costs ............................................................... 75

Appendix D: Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................................... 77

FiguresFigure 1: FiberNet Costs vs. Savings for County ............................................................................. 2

Figure 2: List of Services by Agency ................................................................................................ 3

Figure 3: FiberNet Costs vs. Savings for County ............................................................................. 7

Figure 4: List of Services by Agency ................................................................................................ 9

Figure 5: Broadband Realignment Organizational Chart .............................................................. 36

Figure 6: High‐Level Fiber Routing for Cost Estimate ................................................................... 43

Figure 7 : Output of Cost Estimation Tool .................................................................................... 43

Figure 8: Value Input ..................................................................................................................... 44


iv

Figure 9: Smartsheet Home Page ................................................................................................. 45

Figure 10: Gantt Chart in Smartsheet ........................................................................................... 45

Figure 11: FiberNet Map with Hubs .............................................................................................. 46

Figure 12: Logical Diagram of FiberNet Hubs and Backbone Cable ............................................. 47

Figure 13: Representative Map of Feeder Fiber Expansion and User Site Additions ................... 49

Figure 14: Feeder Fiber – Original Build ....................................................................................... 50

Figure 15: Feeder Fiber – Expanded Build .................................................................................... 50

Figure 16: Feeder Fiber – Remediated Build ................................................................................ 51

Figure 17: Microduct Applications ................................................................................................ 52

Figure 18: Physical Plant Digitization Process ............................................................................... 53

Figure 19: Physical Plant Documentation Process ........................................................................ 54

Figure 20: DWDM Service Segmentation Example ....................................................................... 62

TablesTable 1: FiberNet CIP Appropriation by Fiscal Year ........................................................................ 6

Table 2: FiberNet Operations and Maintenance Budget by Fiscal Year ......................................... 7

Table 3: Planned Service Enhancements for Participating Agencies ............................................ 10

Table 4: Pending MCPS Projects Under the FiberNet CIP ............................................................. 13

Table 5: Pending M–NCPPC Projects Under the FiberNet CIP ...................................................... 17

Table 6: M –NCPPC Estimated Savings by Migrating to FiberNet ................................................ 18

Table 7: Cost Recovery Period for Pending M–NCPPC Projects Under FiberNet CIP ................... 19

Table 8: Pending WSSC Projects Under the FiberNet CIP ............................................................. 20

Table 9: Pending MCG Projects Under the FiberNet CIP .............................................................. 24

Table 10: County Initiatives Requiring FiberNet Support ............................................................. 26

Table 11: UltraMontgomery Initiatives Requiring FiberNet Support ........................................... 29

Table 12: Anticipated Process for Establishing KPIs ..................................................................... 38

Table 13: FiberNet Status Indiciator Categories ........................................................................... 40

Table 14: Hub Remediation Efforts (Completed and Planned) .................................................... 48

Table 15: Estimated FiberNet III Network Electronics Capital Upgrade Costs ............................. 65

Table 16: Estimated FiberNet III Network Electronics Annual Maintenance Costs ..................... 65


1

1 ExecutiveSummaryThis Master Plan is intended as a summary of project status and a planning tool for Montgomery

County government agencies using FiberNet and the broader FiberNet user community. The 2017

Master Plan presents:

FiberNet strategic needs by each Agency, and outlines Agency FiberNet projects and

initiatives that are planned or in progress;

Priorities for capital construction, operations and maintenance process improvements;

A high‐level capital construction schedule and budget for user site buildout plans over

the next three to four years, including requested sites that have not yet been approved

for construction or funded.

Fiber construction to many of the remaining sites on the FiberNet site list will be very expensive.

The Master Plan recommends that the ITPCC consider whether FiberNet should be funded to

contract for transport services on behalf of the Participating Agencies, to meet the short and mid‐

range bandwidth and connectivity needs of Participating Agencies, when this option is in the best

interest of the ITPCC. Beyond these funding issues, the Master Plan explores:

FiberNet operational considerations—including the need for sufficient qualified staff,

and a management structure that effectively distributes supervision of the network;

A FiberNet governance structure based on established roles and duties, not simply

informal relationships; and

The technical options and recommendations to transition to the next generation core

electronics for FiberNet III.

This is the third Master Plan since 1995, and the 2017 Master Plan recommends updating the

Master Plan on at least a bi‐annual basis. The 2017 Master Plan presents the technical and

operations issues that must be addressed as part of the transition to FiberNet III, and the intent

is for the ITPCC to work collaboratively to build consensus around operational choices and

technical solutions to implement a transition to FiberNet III.

1.1 FiberNet’sValuetotheCountyFiberNet was established in 1995 as a cost‐effective, expandable network to meet the County

government’s data, voice, and video communications needs. Originally built over fiber plant that

the Department of Transportation (DOT) had installed for traffic communications, FiberNet was

one of the first and largest local‐government‐owned fiber networks in the country. It is operated

by the Department of Technology Services (DTS), with the physical plant maintained by DOT.

FiberNet’s FY18 operations and maintenance budget is $4.1 million. By comparison, in 2016,

FiberNet’s offsets were estimated at $33 million per year in monthly recurring


2

telecommunications and network services costs that the County would otherwise have to spend

for comparable communications services (Figure 1).1

Figure 1: FiberNet Costs vs. Savings for County

Because of FiberNet, the County is nationally recognized as a leader in public sector provision of

fiber services to meet internal needs. FiberNet now comprises 665 route miles of fiber connecting

approximately 474 sites with 24 more approved for construction. The fiber infrastructure is

installed mostly as County attachments on utility poles and in County underground conduit. The

County owns its fiber and maintains its pole attachment rights, so FiberNet is independent of

cable and telecommunications companies.2

In addition to the County’s substantial annual cost savings and the capacity FiberNet makes

available to County users, which significantly exceeds the capacity available from commercial

services, additional functional benefits include the ability to:

Determine the priority of repair and construction tasks,

Choose the most suitable physical cable pathway for new construction,

Document all aspects of the physical infrastructure,

Scale and upgrade services according to a known, negotiated price and schedule,

Construct advanced infrastructure in areas unserved by private sector service providers,

Determine and manage according to performance metrics, and

1 See “Fiscal Benefits of FiberNet,” http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dts/fibernet.html 2 FiberNet’s 665 route miles include approximately 100 miles of fiber obtained as part of the Comcast cable franchise agreement. The first sites constructed were primarily public safety sites, but in later years, the Comcast partnership was used to reach sites that were far from the County’s FiberNet fiber and more expensive for the County to construct independent of Comcast. Most of the Comcast fiber is in the last mile or so, and connects to a single site. For the later sites, the County paid Comcast the incremental construction cost for the fiber and has right of use of the cable strands, but the cable belongs to Comcast. If the Comcast franchise is terminated, the County has the right to purchase at depreciated value the sites that Comcast built for the County as part of the franchise, and at no additional cost where the County has already funded fiber construction.


3

Determine what uses of the network are acceptable.

1.2 FiberNet’sCurrentServicesFiberNet is the core network that delivers all County communications services – access to e‐mail,

the Internet, and 311. FiberNet serves as the backbone for public safety communications

including supporting a redundant 911 calling network, fire station alerting, a significant part of

public safety radio systems, police station communications, communications to state police, and

public safety mobile communications are routed through FiberNet.

In addition to its enterprise responsibilities to Montgomery County Government (MCG), FiberNet

has implemented and supported services for other agencies as one of its core directives. The

agencies include: Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Montgomery College (MC),

Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M–NCPPC), Washington Suburban

Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC). All primary

telecommunications services for MCPS, MC, M‐NCPPC, and HOC are delivered over FiberNet.

Figure 2: List of Services by Agency

HOC MC MCPS MCG M‐NCPPC WSSC

Wide Area Network

Internet Access

Disaster Recovery Service

PON

Local Loop Cost Elimination

Video Connectivity

DWDM

Telephony & Wi‐Fi

Public Safety Communications

Governance of this ongoing support is by County Council resolution and a formal committee

called the Interagency Technology Policy and Coordination Committee (ITPCC). Along with

coordination, oversight and planning, ITPCC has a CIO Subcommittee to review and recommend

technical aspects. Depending on each agency’s individual needs, FiberNet provides services or

the infrastructure for services to the participating agency. Figure 2 illustrates the services or

infrastructure for services utilized or being considered by each agency.

As part of FiberNet’s responsibilities and obligations to the ITPCC, the Master Plan documents

each member’s evolving needs and future plans for services, as well as the progress of currently

approved projects. Information will continue to be gathered via committee meetings and

individual planning sessions with ITPCC members and FiberNet managers.


4

1.3 FiberNetSitestoBeAddedThe County government and FiberNet users have requested that FiberNet add 30 priority sites to

the network over the period of FY17 to FY20. FiberNet has also received requests to fund 39 sites

through the FiberNet CIP appropriation. In this period, the current number of sites in the FiberNet

pipeline totals 54. Because other agencies and departments of the County government can

independently fund sites, the total pipeline number could grow. For example, if funding becomes

available for the M–NCPPC Wi‐Fi in the Parks project, 12 to 15 additional sites could be added to

the pipeline.

These sites have been placed into a master construction schedule that spreads the work out over

the next three to four fiscal years to accommodate FiberNet’s annual budget (see Appendix C).

1.4 FiberNetImprovementsinProcessIn addition to ongoing operational efforts, FiberNet’s leadership has focused on a series of

improvements to the network’s infrastructure. As described in detail below, these include:

Hub remediation: FiberNet currently has 12 hub locations throughout the County. These

locations provide aggregation points for the network’s user sites. FiberNet planned to remediate

the hub sites at a rate of approximately one hub per quarter. (See Section 4.6.1.)

Feeder fiber expansion: Feeder fiber runs from the hub sites to user sites, with laterals from a

main feeder branching to individual sites. As with the hub remediation, feeder fiber expansion is

necessary due to meet current demand and support future site additions. (See Section 4.6.2.)

Service‐level specification: FiberNet is monitored 24x7 by a DTS Network Operations Center. DTS

has developed a document that defines the service level agreement (SLA) for FiberNet services—

creating quantifiable expectations for service. (See Section 4.7.2.)

1.5 RecommendationsforFutureFiberNetOperationsThe Master Plan identifies a number of recommendations related to FiberNet operations,

including:

Budgeting for expansion: In 2006, ITPCC reached an understanding that the FiberNet CIP would

fund extension of FiberNet to existing buildings, and the cost of a fiber connection and

termination to a new or significantly renovated building would be incorporated into the capital

budget for the building, and not become a cost absorbed by the FiberNet budget. Establishing

cost‐sharing standards will help prevent unexpected overruns in budgets and promote

engagement with FiberNet’s end users. (See Section 3.1.)


5

Documenting the physical layer: In order to keep up with best practices for network expansion

and required network reliability, FiberNet will continue its focus on documentation of new fiber

routes, as well as recording break‐fix changes (see Section 4.6.4).

Migrating to new optical technology: FiberNet’s current technological roadmap calls for the

implementation of dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) technology on the FiberNet

high‐speed backbone and passive optical networking (PON) as the means of connecting individual

users to FiberNet (where agencies have opted into PON deployments 3 ). Both approaches

represent an innovative implementation of fiber networking technologies. Moreover, these

technologies will provide significantly more options in keeping the network secure; will reduce

the network lifetime cost, the likelihood of failures, and the network’s energy consumption; and

will make it easier and cheaper to add users and capacity to the network. (See Section 4.8.)

3 MCG and MNCPPC are now implementing PON as a wiring standard in new buildings and MC is actively reviewing. HOC and WSSC have not made a determination. MCPS has opted out of using PON.


6

2 KeystoContinuedSuccess:ValueofFiberNet

2.1 FiberNetHistoryFiberNet was established in 1995 as a cost‐effective, adaptable, expandable network to meet the

Montgomery County government’s data, voice, and video communications needs. Originally built

over fiber plant that the Department of Transportation (DOT) had begun installing for traffic

communications, FiberNet was one of the first and largest local‐government‐owned fiber

networks in the country. It is operated by the Department of Technology Services (DTS), with the

physical plant maintained by DOT.

Over time, FiberNet was expanded with fiber provided through the County’s cable franchise

agreements and further constructed with restricted capital funding from the cable franchise

agreements and funds from the federal government’s broadband stimulus program—the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Broadband Technology Opportunities

Program (BTOP).

The County is nationally recognized as a leader in public sector provision of fiber services to meet

internal needs. FiberNet now comprises 665 route miles of fiber connecting approximately 474

sites with 24 more approved for construction. The fiber infrastructure is installed mostly as

County attachments on utility poles and in County underground conduit. Unlike Fairfax County

and the District of Columbia, the County owns its fiber and maintains its pole attachment rights,

so FiberNet is independent of cable and telecommunications companies.4

The tables below depict FiberNet’s annual capital expense and operating budgets for fiscal year

2017 and fiscal year 2018.

Table 1: FiberNet CIP Appropriation by Fiscal Year

FY DOT FiberNet Total

FY17 $752,500 $2,940,000 $3,692,500

FY18 $565,000 $3,325,000 $3,890,000

4 FiberNet’s 665 route miles include approximately 100 miles of fiber obtained as part of the Comcast cable franchise agreement. The first sites constructed were primarily public safety sites, but in later years, the Comcast partnership was used to reach sites that were far from the County’s FiberNet fiber and more expensive for the County to construct independent of Comcast. Most of the Comcast fiber is in the last mile or so, and connects to a single site. For the later sites, the County paid Comcast the incremental construction cost for the fiber and has right of use of the cable strands, but the cable belongs to Comcast. If the Comcast franchise is terminated, the County has the right to purchase at depreciated value the sites that Comcast built for the County as part of the franchise, and at no additional cost where the County has already funded fiber construction.


7

Table 2: FiberNet Operations and Maintenance Budget by Fiscal Year

FY Operations & Maintenance

FY17 $3,784,000

FY18 $4,096,500

By comparison, in 2016 the network offsets were estimated at $33 million per year in monthly

recurring telecommunications and network services costs that the County would otherwise have

to spend for comparable communications services.5

Figure 3: FiberNet Costs vs. Savings for County

2.2 FiberNetMustRetainControlofItsInfrastructureandOperationsStaffing and organizational issues are important considerations for FiberNet’s ongoing success.

Over the lifetime of FiberNet, the County has achieved significant benefits from operating an

independent network. In addition to the County’s substantial annual cost savings and the

capacity FiberNet makes available to County users, which significantly exceeds the capacity

available from commercial services, additional functional benefits include the ability to:

Determine the priority of repair and construction tasks,

Choose the most suitable physical cable pathway for new construction,

Document all aspects of the physical infrastructure,

Scale and upgrade services according to a known, negotiated price and schedule,

Construct advanced infrastructure in areas unserved by private sector service providers,

Determine and manage according to performance metrics, and

Determine what uses of the network are acceptable.

Following the Organizational Study (see Section 4), FiberNet has made efforts to fill key positions

internally instead of outsourcing those roles.

5 See “Fiscal Benefits of FiberNet,” http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dts/fibernet.html


8

3 FutureNeeds

3.1 UserSiteAdditionsThe County government and FiberNet users have requested that FiberNet add 30 priority sites to

the network over the period of FY17 to FY20. FiberNet has also received requests to fund 39 sites

through the FiberNet CIP appropriation. In this period, the current number of sites in the FiberNet

pipeline totals 54. Because other agencies and departments of the County government can

independently fund sites, the total pipeline number could grow. For example, if funding becomes

available for the M–NCPPC Wi‐Fi in the parks project, 12 to 15 additional sites could be added to

the pipeline.

At some point the cost to construct fiber to a site becomes economically unjustifiable. This does

not diminish the need for reliable bandwidth; rather it suggests that FiberNet may have a

requirement to provide WAN connectivity through other means.

These sites and the feeder fiber expansion routes have been placed into a master construction

schedule that spreads the work out over the next three to four fiscal years to accommodate

FiberNet’s annual budget for constructing fiber and connecting user sites (see Appendix C). Cost

estimates in the aforementioned table were formulated by creating a desk‐level design for each

route, and applying unit pricing from current County construction contracts. Other constraints

incorporated into the schedule include the completion of the hub remediation and construction

of the feeder routes for the sites.

A formalized process will be developed for adding to and prioritizing within the proposed

schedule. User site addition requests come from multiple agencies with competing priorities.

Having impartial methods and clear procedures in the prioritization of sites can set proper

expectations for the various external stakeholders and internal departments.

In terms of budgeting, there is an inherent economy of scale in connecting multiple sites in one

fiber construction project and in taking advantage of opportunities provides by other

construction projects in the area. This approach can also aid in creating synergies with other

related, but not controlling, initiatives.

The capital projects listed in Appendix C represent the existing buildings for which a FiberNet

connection would be funded by FiberNet, subject to ITPCC review. In 2006, ITPCC member

agencies reached an understanding that the cost of a fiber connection to a new building should

be incorporated into the capital budget for the building, and not become a cost absorbed by the

FiberNet budget. Establishing cost‐sharing standards will help prevent unexpected overruns in

budgets and promote engagement with FiberNet’s end users.


9

As explored in Section 4.5.4.2, using GIS (Geographical Information Systems) programs to map

the future sites, and allowing them to be overlaid with proposed fiber expansion initiatives, will

create efficiencies in fiber construction. This can be one component of a larger strategic plan for

smart growth of the network. (This topic is explored in Section 4.5.)

3.2 InteragencySupportandCollaborationIn addition to its enterprise responsibilities to Montgomery County Government (MCG), FiberNet

has implemented and supported services for other agencies as one of its core directives. The

agencies include: Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Montgomery College (MC),

Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M–NCPPC), Washington Suburban

Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC). Governance of this

ongoing support is by County Council resolution and a formal committee called the Interagency

Technology Policy and Coordination Committee (ITPCC). Along with coordination, oversight and

planning, ITPCC has a CIO Subcommittee to review and recommend technical aspects. Depending

on each agency’s individual needs, FiberNet provides services or the infrastructure for services

to the participating agency. Figure 4 illustrates the services or infrastructure for services utilized

or being considered by each agency.

Figure 4: List of Services by Agency

HOC MC MCPS MCG M‐NCPPC WSSC

Wide Area Network

Internet Access

Disaster Recovery Service

PON

Local Loop Cost Elimination

Video Connectivity

DWDM

Telephony & Wi‐Fi

Public Safety Communications

As part of FiberNet’s responsibilities and obligations to the ITPCC, the Master Plan documents

each member’s evolving needs and future plans for services, as well as the progress of currently


10

approved projects. Information will continue to be gathered via committee meetings and

individual planning sessions with ITPCC members and FiberNet managers. Based on current

available information, FiberNet anticipates enhancing the following services:

Table 3: Planned Service Enhancements for Participating Agencies

MCPS MC M‐NCPPC WSSC HOC MCG

Additional Sites Requested 14+ 4 20 10 35

Sites Approved 7 3 6 3‐5 30

Wi‐Fi

Dedicated/Direct Links

Regional Govt/Ed Links

More ISP Broadband

Cost Avoidance (Replace Leased Services with FiberNet)

DWDM

Disaster Recovery

Enhanced Network Monitoring/NOC

Peering

Smart County

Radio

Kiosks

PON X

The information in this section was gathered through discussions held as part of the

Organizational Study. Additionally, representatives of each ITPCC member had the opportunity

to expand and update the description of the entity’s FiberNet needs. This section also estimates

anticipated agencies’ needs based on available information about current initiatives and site

additions.

This section is comprised of information on the needs of the agencies, as provided or described

by those agencies. These needs have not been prioritized or analyzed by FiberNet or MCG.

Throughout the document references are made to fiscal and calendar years. When a fiscal year

is designated as in FY17, the reference identifies the FiberNet CIP appropriation year providing


11

funds that site’s construction. When a calendar year is designated as in CY17, the reference

identifies the year that site is expected to be connected to FiberNet. The total construction time

for building a site from the time it is Approved To Build takes from twelve to eighteen months.

3.2.1 MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools(MCPS)MCPS’s IT vision statement in its Strategic Technology Plan is: “All learners will participate in

technology‐enriched learning communities that inspire intellectual curiosity and prepare them

with the knowledge and skills to excel in college and chosen careers in an evolving digital age.”6

Some of the notable highlights of the strategic plan, as it pertains to FiberNet, are a commitment

to deploying Wi‐Fi in every school central services office, developing a sustainable technology

funding plan, reducing “print instructional text” by 70 percent, “supporting equitable access to

the MCPS digital community,” and enabling “anytime access to files and appropriate data.”

3.2.1.1 NeedsAssessmentMCPS representatives provided the following information and insight:

The greatest factors we anticipate in terms of the needs for MCPS are increases in two major

areas:

Dependency on the internet for cloud solutions, such as Office 365, Google Apps for

Education, and Oracle

Number of end‐user devices that will require network access (WLAN, LAN, and WAN)

Specifically, these are the anticipated needs for MCPS as it relates to FiberNet and the FiberNet

solution over the course of the next 10 years, starting in FY19:

1. Currently, MCPS has an ISP connection to RCN and Atlantech Online (AOI). The connection

from RCN is made directly into 45 W. Gude, but the AOI connection comes into MCPS by

way of FiberNet. In anticipation of approaching 20 Gbps of ISP utilization by the end of

FY19, it would be advantageous for MCPS to have a dedicated link from Gude directly to

AOI, or to the FiberNet hub where AOI connects. In the event of an RCN outage, our AOI

connection over FiberNet would be overwhelmed because all school traffic and internet

traffic would be combined on the one path from FiberNet to the Gude Data Center.

2. FiberNet should continue the upgrade of bandwidth to all schools, including a 1 Gbps

capacity for the elementary schools, which we anticipate being adequate for the

foreseeable future.

6 “Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Technology Plan (2014 – 2016),” http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/technology/Strategic_Tech_Plan.pdf


12

3. While the current 1 Gbps of bandwidth capacity that FiberNet is planning for the

elementary schools is expected to be adequate, we anticipate a need for greater

bandwidth in middle and high schools. This will require more than the current 20 Gbps

connection we have into FiberNet from our data center at 45 W. Gude.

4. Tremendous progress has been made to get our schools connected to FiberNet, but MCPS

will ultimately need all of our non‐school‐based offices connected as well. We believe this

is already part of the budget allocation for FiberNet, but there has not been much

movement on this given the priority on schools. It may take a few years to get them all

connected.

5. Currently, we have secondary Comcast connections in all of our schools. The connection

goes to the internet over which we use VPN technology to tunnel the traffic between the

schools/offices back to 45 W. Gude. The path is both inefficient and requires the use of

additional and specialized equipment to establish the tunnel. It would be a tremendous

improvement in both privacy and efficiency if FiberNet could leverage a relationship with

Comcast and bring the connections from each of the modems in those schools and offices

back to 45 W. Gude by way of FiberNet and not over the internet.

6. While most of the points on this list speak to needs and additions, one trend we would

like to see go away, for MCPS at least, is the use of Passive Optical Network (PON)

technology to connect our locations. While we recognize the cost savings of a PON‐based

network, it has substantial obstacles in troubleshooting because it is light based. Point‐

to‐point “visibility” is not as viable as it is on copper‐based technology at the LAN level.

Additionally, for the locations where PON is used, MCPS staff is limited in terms of what

we can troubleshoot and resolve for ourselves. We have to depend on the specialized

skillset and availability of outside resources, which affects how quickly we can provide

service to our customers, a service we have traditionally responded within minutes and

hours to in the past.

7. MCPS’s Transportation department has added a radio‐based technology to allow wireless

communications to and from buses. As a result, three to five radio towers have been

added (or more may be coming) to connect the Transportation depots to the radio

network. Given the number of radios that will now connect to the MCPS network through

these radio towers, having FiberNet connect to these radio towers would provide an

efficient and reliable connection from the depots to our network using those radios.

3.2.1.2 CurrentProjectStatusCurrently, there are 9 MCPS sites in the pipeline to be connected under the FiberNet CIP from

FY17 to FY19 (Table 4). Five sites have been approved (A) for FiberNet funding: Richard


13

Montgomery Elementary School, Radnor Center, Wilson Wims Elementary School, Emory Grove

ES and West Farm Depot NSBO. Four sites are still under consideration for near term

construction. In addition, three sites – Mark Twain Blair Ewing Center, Lynnbrook Center, and

Randolph Depot – have recently been connected, the Stonestreet Print Shop will be connected

by a campus link constructed by MCPS, and two sites – CTI NBSO on Choke Cherry Road and

Muddy Branch–Festival – were removed from consideration because they are closing. Prior to

approval, there is a need for further analysis to determine the rationale for building to the

unapproved sites. The analysis for site additions considers the agency’s needs and compares the

overall benefit of the site addition to the cost of construction.

Table 4: Pending MCPS Projects Under the FiberNet CIP

STATUS SITE & BUDGET YEAR IN WHICH FUNDING WILL BE ALLOCATED COST ESTIMATE

(A)pproved FY17 Total $208,561

Built Lynnbrook Center NSBO, 8001 Lynnbrook Drive, Bethesda $0

Built Mark Twain Blair Ewing Center, 14501 Avery Road, Rockville By Comcast $0

MCPS Campus

Print Shop Stonestreet NSBO, 660 North Stonestreet Avenue, Adjacent to Other MCPS FiberNet site, MCPS will connect

$0

Built Randolph Depot NSBO, 1800 Old Randolph Road, Silver Spring $49,700

A Richard Montgomery ES, 322 W. Edmonston, Rockville $158,861

FY18 Total $500,701

Deferred Hadley Farms NSBO, 7401 Hadley Farms Drive, Gaithersburg $117,200

Deferred Montrose Ctr NSBO, 12301 Academy Way Rockville $45,200

A Radnor Center, 7000 Radnor Lane, Bethesda $38,700

A Wilson Wims ES, 12520 Blue Sky Drive, Clarksburg $254,400

A Emory Grove Holding School (added by deferring Hadley Farms) $45,200

FY19 Total $441,000

Kingsley Wilderness Center NSBO, 22870 Whelan Lane, Boyds $90,000

Rica SS, 15000 Broschart Road, Rockville $142,000

A West Farm Depot NSBO, 11920 Bournfield Way, Silver Spring (added by deferring Montrose Center)

$209,000

Grand Total $1,150,261

3.2.1.3 FuturePlanningAs there is a growing convergence to a totally digital learning environment incorporating tele‐

classrooms, self‐service portals, paperless assignments/testing, virtual parent/teacher

communications, and digital administration, the need for a scalable fiber network is paramount.

According to the latest CIP, student enrollment projections are going to grow especially in areas

where there are high concentrations of families without internet access at home. Even schools

that have projections of lower student enrollments will still need more infrastructure and

broadband due to the increasing amount of bandwidth consumption for the ever‐evolving digital

classroom.


14

During FY18, FiberNet proposes to undertake the following tasks to help meet MCPS’s growing

needs:

1. Work with Atlantech Online to create a 10 Gbps dense wavelength division multiplexing

(DWDM) link between MCPS’s data center, located at 45 W. Gude, and two points of

presence within Atlantech Online’s network

2. Continue work with MCPS staff to convert all elementary schools to 1 Gbps links into

FiberNet

3. Upgrade the connectivity into the MCPS data center to multiple, diverse 10 Gbps links

using multiplexed DWDM technology

4. Approach Comcast to request more direct peering with FiberNet to deliver cable modem

traffic into the data center

3.2.1.4 BudgetaryConsiderationsIt was FiberNet’s understanding that all future new school funding would include the total

amount of the network build in MCPS’s CIP, based on the 2006 understanding within ITPCC.

Currently, Wilson Wims Elementary School and the new Richard Montgomery Elementary School

are the only remaining schools whose FiberNet connections are scheduled to be funded by the

FiberNet CIP.

3.2.2 MontgomeryCollege(MC)Montgomery College’s strategic plan includes shifting existing leased services from the private

sector to FiberNet. With demand for bandwidth rapidly rising, the cost of connectivity could

become a budgetary burden if MC is forced to continue to rely on private service providers.

3.2.2.1 NeedsAssessmentLike most higher education institutions, MC is looking for broadband solutions that will enhance

its ability to provide innovative research opportunities and world‐class educational services.

Meeting these needs requires more than a standard internet connection; specifically, MC seeks:

A robust connection between its campus locations to improve remote instruction

opportunities, facilitate the sharing of resources between MC’s various campus locations,

and make local campuses more desirable for faculty and students.

High‐capacity links between MC’s network and outside entities that will allow researchers

to collaborate with faculty from nearby institutions, like the University of Maryland, on

large data sets.


15

3.2.2.2 CurrentProjectStatusFiberNet is currently in the process of building a new fiber connection to MC’s King Street campus

and has approved construction for three additional links to the following campus sites: Westfield

South Center Campus, Gaithersburg Business Training Center, and MC’s Central Services

Building’s (CT Building) redundant link. Upon completion of these links FiberNet will be able to

provide MC with a logical topology that will provide redundancy to its main campus locations on

par with the commercial service the college currently receives. As FiberNet builds out the

network and more sites are added, FiberNet will deploy DWDM equipment to create the highly

meshed topology MC requires. (DWDM networks can place dozens of discrete wavelengths of

light on the same fiber strand. Each of these wavelengths acts as a separate, high‐capacity

network. Not only does DWDM allow capacity to be added as needed, but it also increases

security.)

3.2.2.3 FuturePlanningWith the continued support of FiberNet, MC is looking to launch additional initiatives over the

next few years. For example, MC would like to add a diverse path between its network and MAX

(Mid‐Atlantic Crossroads, the University of Maryland’s government and educational fiber

network). FiberNet had previously built a DWDM link between MC’s King Street data center and

the MAX point‐of‐presence at the University of Maryland. A second link to MAX would add

redundancy to this critical connection. FiberNet will look for opportunities to build a redundant,

diversely routed link to MAX for MC. Obtaining access to Maryland State fiber along the Purple

Line would be an ideal way to achieve the desired connection, and ultraMontgomery continues

to look for opportunities to achieve this. However, FiberNet will pursue other candidate routes

to ensure the correct solution is provided to MC.

In 2012, MC and MCG entered into a dark fiber MOU to facilitate allocation of fiber within

FiberNet for creation of a MC network within FiberNet. The implementation of DWDM

technology (i.e., similar to a rainbow, light spectrum is split into separate wave lengths and

frequencies to allow multiple and separate data streams to be transmitted through a single fiber

strand) may allow a separate MC network to be operated using shared fiber. If the DWDM

solution meets MC’s needs, the 2012 MC‐MCG dark fiber MOU may need to be updated after

further consultation with MC to reflect provision of an MC Network using optical networking

segmentation rather than physical fiber segmentation.

MC would also like to add its site at Standish Place to the network.

3.2.2.4 BudgetaryConsiderations$750,000 from MC was transferred into the FiberNet CIP to support construction related to

implementation of the 2012 dark fiber MOU, and additional funding was provided by the


16

FiberNet CIP. Funding for current MC projects is allocated in the Montgomery College CIP. No

other additional funding allocation has been made for any of the new MC projects in the FiberNet

CIP.

3.2.3 Maryland–NationalParkandPlanningCommission(M–NCPPC)The Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M–NCPPC) maintains and

administers 52,000 acres of 400+ parks across Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, and

has responsibility for land use planning. In addition to its Central Administrative Services

department (which encompasses the Office of the Chief Information Officer), Its departments

include Montgomery County’s Department of Parks and M–NCPPC’s Planning Department and

Planning Board.

Montgomery Parks and Montgomery Planning were early embracers of FiberNet, with their three

major headquarters buildings (Planning–MRO, Parks–Parkside, and Park Police–Saddlebrook)

utilizing FiberNet circuits for many years. Over the years, M–NCPPC has steadily increased its

FiberNet integration with connectivity to a total of 21 facilities.

The IT Strategic Plan for Parks and Planning includes an initiative to leverage FiberNet wherever

possible to eliminate reliance upon commercial carriers in favor of FiberNet. The FiberNet NOC

and increases in FiberNet staffing are two efforts that have ensured FiberNet’s viability as a

primary internet connection supporting M–NCPPC. The new Wheaton headquarters building will

consolidate staff—bringing together operations staff from the Parks department and

development staff from the Planning department. FiberNet services provided to the new

headquarters will be a FiberNet III connection and PON technology.

3.2.3.1 NeedsAssessmentA unique characteristic of M–NCPPC that poses a challenge to fulling the agency’s needs is the

geographical scope of the parks and facilities it manages. While M–NCPPC’s recreation centers,

Park Police stations, and maintenance facilities are distributed similarly to MCPS or MC locations

served by FiberNet, the parks themselves cover much more land, up to the very borders of the

County. Providing such lengthy OSP will require a significant capital investment that may

outweigh the potential cost avoidance as compared to buying leased services.

Cost avoidance is one of the major needs of the agency. As new facilities are added, or the

broadband service contracts at existing facilities expire, M–NCPPC desires to connect those sites

with FiberNet.

Given that the agency has its own police force, public safety is another core function. Having the

availability to connect to a robust broadband network would allow the police to effectively

deploy fixed and mobile cameras. Moreover, M–NCPPC believes that the cost effectiveness of


17

FiberNet must include not only the initial cost of installation and cost avoidance, but the value of

reliable service as well. FiberNet, with the recent additional of a more robust NOC, is M–NCPPC’s

preferred provider for reliable service.

3.2.3.2 CurrentProjectStatusCurrently, there are 16 M–NCPPC sites in the pipeline to be connected under the FiberNet CIP

from FY17 to FY20. Four of these sites, including Needwood Mansion, have been approved for

funding and are scheduled to be built in CY18 and CY19. Network construction to Wheaton Ice

Arena and Park Maintenance Yard has been completed and is waiting for M‐NCPPC to activate.

The 12 remaining sites, currently scheduled for FY19 and FY20, have yet to be approved. Prior to

approval, there is a need for further analysis to determine the rationale for building to the

identified sites. The analysis for site additions considers the agency’s needs and compares the

overall benefit of the site addition – including more intangible benefits such as reliability, speed,

and security – to the financial metrics of construction cost and other cost avoidance.

Table 5: Pending M–NCPPC Projects Under the FiberNet CIP



Built Wheaton Ice Arena, 11717 Orebaugh Ave, Wheaton $39,040

Built Wheaton Regional Park Maintenance Yard, 12012 Kemp Mill Rd, Wheaton

$51,369

FY18 Total $201,000

A Woodlawn Park Police Substation, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $201,000

FY19 Total $473,000

Meadowside Nature Center, 5100 Meadowside Lane, Rockville $140,800

A Needwood Mansion, 6700 Needwood Rd, Rockville $195,800

Pope Farm Nursery, 7400 Airpark Rd, Gaithersburg $34,500

Waters House, 12535 Milestone Manor Lane, Germantown $51,900

Woodlawn Manor, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $25,000

Woodlawn Visitors Center, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $25,000

FY20 Total $1,974,900

Black Hill Headquarters, 20930 Lake Ridge Dr., Boyds $500,000

Black Hill Northern Region Headquarters & Park Police Office, 14300 Black Hill Rd, Boyds

$500,000

Brookside Nature Center, 1400 Glenallan Ave, Wheaton $218,600

Little Bennett Campgrounds, 23705 Frederick Rd, Clarksburg $310,200

Little Bennett Maintenance Yard, 23701 Frederick Rd, Clarksburg $42,900

Martin Luther King MY, 1120 Jackson Rd, Silver Spring $182,200

Olney Maintenance Yard, 19117 Willow Grove Rd, Olney $221,000



18

3.2.3.3 FuturePlanningThe M–NCPPC website states there are approximately 15 sites currently in construction, with

twice that number in the planning or design stages. In addition to avoiding costs by connecting

existing sites to FiberNet, M–NCPPC would like to connect those new sites as they are completed.

3.2.3.4 BudgetaryConsiderationsBeside leveraging FiberNet CIP funding, M–NCPPC obtains funding from federal and state grants,

various bonds, and donations. M–NCPPC also obtained direct funding from the County’s Cable

Fund to support its Wi‐Fi in the Parks Pilot, and will be seeking additional funding to expand this

initiative (see Section 3.4).

M–NCPPC has estimated that by migrating sites to FiberNet, it will save up to $200,000 annually

in operating expenses (see Table 6).

Table 6: M –NCPPC Estimated Savings by Migrating to FiberNet

M–NCPPC Site Estimated Savings

Wheaton Regional Park $20,000

Black Hill Regional Park $68,000

Little Bennett Regional Park $20,000

Rock Creek Regional Park $20,000

Martin Luther King Jr. Recreational Park $14,000

Woodlawn Manor Cultural Park $15,000

Rockwood Manor Park $3,000

Waters House $14,000

Seneca Park $3,000

Olney Maintenance Yard $7,000

Pope Farm Nursery $7,000

Agricultural History Farm Park $7,000

Kengla House $2,000

Comparing Table 5 and Table 6, we find that construction costs to connect all but four sites total

$1.7 million to $2.4 million—which, based on estimated savings per site, equates to a total cost

recovery period of 8.7 to 12.2 years. CIP A represents one connection at a location, CIP B

represents all other connections at that location. Separate buildings within a park site may be

separated by a significant distance and thus require an additional FiberNet CIP project cost. (Sites

listed without cost estimates are new requests from M‐NCPPC provided during the information

gathering phase of drafting this Master Plan.) Additional intangible benefits of reliability, speed

and security are more difficult to calculate and are not displayed below.


19

Table 7: Cost Recovery Period for Pending M–NCPPC Projects Under FiberNet CIP

M–NCPPC Site CIP A

(one site) CIP B

(at same site) Estimated Savings

A/ Savings (Years)

A+B/ Savings (Years)

Wheaton Regional Park $178,000 $113,500 $20,000 8.9 14.6

Black Hill Regional Park $500,000 $500,000 $68,000 7.4 14.7

Little Bennett Regional Park $310,200 $42,900 $20,000 15.5 17.7

Rock Creek Regional Park $20,000

Martin Luther King Jr. Recreational Park

$182,200 $14,000 13.0 13.0

Woodlawn Manor Cultural Park $201,000 $50,000 $15,000 13.4 16.7

Rockwood Manor Park $51,900 $3,000 17.3 17.3

Waters House $51,900 $14,000 3.7 3.7

Seneca Park $3,000 0.0 0.0

Olney Maintenance Yard $221,000 $7,000 31.6 31.6

Pope Farm Nursery $34,500 $7,000 4.9 4.9

Agricultural History Farm Park $7,000

Kengla House $2,000

$1,730,700 $706,400 $200,000 8.7 12.2

In the absence of other strategic objectives that could change the business case for an otherwise

expensive build to a requested site, leasing transport services from a third party may be a cost‐

effective way to achieve the functionality of a FiberNet fiber connection, while avoiding the

construction cost to extend FiberNet to the most expensive locations. Having FiberNet be the

leasing agent may ensures that the leased connection works within FiberNet, and also extends

FiberNet monitoring and services over the added infrastructure, thereby mediating the risks of

using leased services. Such solutions may be of benefit to multiple Participating Agencies.

3.2.4 WashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission(WSSC) The WSSC’s five‐year IT strategic plan (2013 to 2018) includes gradually replacing its aging IT

infrastructure, scaling to meet an anticipated increase in demand, improving operational

efficiencies, reducing costs, and improving communications with stakeholders. Highlights of the

plan include transitioning to distributed architectures, leveraging cloud infrastructure, investing

in IT security, investing in mobile infrastructure to equip staff with real‐time information and

guidance, and developing analytical capabilities to integrate and harness large‐scale data.

3.2.4.1 NeedsAssessmentAs WSCC updates its infrastructure to include more modern systems, distributed infrastructure,

and cloud‐based services, the demand for bandwidth between sites and to the internet will likely

increase. The resiliency and reliability of those network connections will also become increasingly

important as more processes and services will rely on them. WSSC also plans to install customer


20

kiosks in County facilities. These kiosks may require special arrangements to connect back to the

WSSC network via the existing network at these locations. The fiber network will need to support

the following:

Fast, secure, and reliable data transfer between locations.

Fast and reliable access to internet‐ and cloud‐based services.

Connections to remote kiosks.

Monitoring of network performance and bandwidth utilization predict future use and

scalability.

NOC monitoring of outages separate from user reported disruptions.

3.2.4.2 CurrentProjectStatus Currently, there are 10 WSSC sites either requested or in the construction pipeline to be

connected using successive FiberNet CIPs from FY17 to FY20. Three of these sites, including the

Consolidated Laboratory & West Farm Depot site, have been approved for funding and are

scheduled to be built in CY18 and CY19. A construction “notice to proceed” has been given on

the FY17 depot sites. Two sites may be added for less than $20,000. The seven remaining sites,

currently scheduled for funding in FY19 and FY20, have yet to be approved. Prior to approval,

there is a need for further analysis to determine the rationale for building to the identified sites.

The analysis for site additions considers the agency’s needs and compares the overall benefit of

the site addition to the cost of construction.

Table 8: Pending WSSC Projects Under the FiberNet CIP



A Gaithersburg Depot, 111 West Diamond Avenue, Gaithersburg $53,600

A Lyttonsville Depot, 2501 Lyttonsville Road, Silver Spring $55,000

FY18 Total $329,000

A Consolidated Laboratory & West Farm Depot, 12245 Tech Road, Silver Spring

$309,000

North Woodside Standpipe, 1945 Seminary Place, Silver Spring $10,000

Shady Grove Standpipe, 8620 Pleasant Road, Gaithersburg $10,000

FY20 Total $1,438,000

Brighton Dam, 2 Brighton Dam Road, Brookeville $512,000

Colesville Tank, 2201 Industrial Parkway, Silver Spring $192,000

Damascus Elevated Tank, 9950 Damascus Boulevard, Damascus $372,000

Damascus Wastewater Treatment Plant, 23730 Log House Road, Gaithersburg

$234,000

Falls Road Standpipe, 8505 Aqueduct Road, Potomac $128,000



21

3.2.4.3 FuturePlanningThe modernization of utility systems will bring with it increased reliance on network connectivity

for remote monitoring, control, and automation. It may also broaden the scope of sites that

require wired or wireless connectivity. WSSC may require services that rely on the physical and

data‐level security, redundancy, and resiliency of diverse fiber paths, DWDM, and MPLS. WSSC

may also benefit from wireless solutions to support its interest in mobility and providing real‐

time information to staff.

3.2.4.4 BudgetaryConsiderationsFiberNet’s relationship with WSSC needs to be examined in regard to the funding of new sites

and projects for WSSC. Montgomery County and WSSC share a mutually beneficial relationship

in which each provides services to the other at no cost. WSSC is not a governmental entity,

however, and is funded by rate payers. The County will need to determine on a case‐by‐case basis

whether any additional services it provides should require financial participation from WSSC.

3.2.5 HousingOpportunitiesCommission(HOC)According to HOC’s 2013 to 2017 strategic plan,7 its mission is to provide affordable housing and

supportive housing services that enhance the lives of low‐ and moderate‐income families and

individuals throughout the County. “To achieve this mission, HOC operates as a public housing

agency, a housing finance agency and a housing developer.”8

While the strategic plan does not specifically focus on information technology, it includes specific

approaches to using IT to accomplish the agency’s goals and overall mission.

3.2.5.1 NeedsAssessmentFiberNet can support the availability of online services for HOC’s residents (e.g., maintenance

requests, online payment) and enable Wi‐Fi for residents and staff. Smart building design is

another opportunity to enrich the experience of HOC clients. As new projects are considered or

properties are renovated, smart buildings technologies, supported by FiberNet, promise

increased efficiency by connecting systems to reduce operating costs.

Realizing that HOC shares constituents with MCPS (i.e., students and their parents), aligning

housing goals with school goals could be mutually beneficial for both agencies. One project that

could benefit HOC and MPCS is the concept of student lounges. Each HOC property could have a

dedicated area where students would have free Wi‐Fi access to assist them in their studies and

homework assignments. While students have access to quality broadband at school, they may

7 “Strategic Plan: FY2013‐17,” HOC, http://www.hocmc.org/images/files/ResourceDocs/Strategic‐Plan‐Current.pdf 8 “About HOC: Mission Statement,” http://www.hocmc.org/about‐hoc/about‐us.html


22

not have the same level of access to broadband where they live. In some HOC locations, staff is

available to provide homework assistance.

Similar broadband lounges could also benefit residents of HOC properties that have low student

populations or are completely dedicated to senior living. Making Wi‐Fi broadband lounges

available to seniors could help them with access services such as Medicaid/Medicare enrollment,

wellness check‐ins, and family teleconferencing. It may also enable more digital inclusion and

extra‐curricular STEM programs to be offered at HOC properties.

Another need currently under consideration by HOC IT is disaster recovery services. FiberNet

provides high‐speed and redundant connections at the Atlantech Online data center for all

participating agencies (PA). FiberNet will very soon provide the same capability to the

Montgomery College Tier‐Three Data Center in Silver Spring. Either may be made available if

requested. HOC could utilize these connections to reduce or almost eliminate recurring and

expensive monthly charges for disaster recovery services.

HOC could benefit from a formal and separate strategic IT plan. This would allow its internal goals

and objectives to align with FiberNet.

3.2.5.2 CurrentProjectStatusThere currently are no HOC sites in the pipeline to be built using FiberNet CIP funding from FY17

to FY20. Three administrative headquarter sites were previously connected to FiberNet and

FiberNet connections for 20 HOC sites were funded by the ARRA‐BTOP grant. Alexander House

and several other properties are scheduled to be connected to the network via HOC‐funded

projects.

3.2.5.3 FuturePlanningFuture planning is a crucial area for FiberNet and HOC to align their priorities and objectives. One

key factor in the success of such alignment is knowing when new HOC construction or renovation

are upcoming. Commonly these endeavors take multiple years to plan, approve, and construct.

In addition, knowing where FiberNet has additional feeder fiber expansion can allow HOC to

identify additional sites for which it might request FiberNet connections. Conversely, if FiberNet

is aware of future HOC site locations, FiberNet may be able to adjust feeder fiber expansion plans

to support additional HOC FiberNet extensions.

3.2.5.4 BudgetaryConsiderationsThe sites mentioned above are part of HOC‐funded projects directly contracted with the FiberNet

outside‐plant contractor. Besides self‐sourcing, or receiving funds from FiberNet’s CIP, state or

federal grants could be available to expand broadband access for residents of HOC’s initiatives.


23

FiberNet will recommend in the FY19 CIP funding to place open‐access Wi‐Fi student lounges in

all of the HOC properties connected to FiberNet.

3.2.6 MontgomeryCountyGovernment(MCG)andDepartmentofTechnology(DTS)Montgomery “County’s technology vision is to be a digital county – ready for today and prepared

for tomorrow.”9 DTS’s strategic plan includes expanding the capacity and reach of its investment

in broadband as well as a focus on digital equity. The DTS mission statement is “to leverage

technology to facilitate the delivery of County government services in a cost‐effective, timely,

high‐quality, and secure manner.” Under this mission are goals that include:

Increased use of web, cloud, and social media platforms (including video)

Improved security, resiliency, and handling of sensitive (HIPAA and PCI DSS)10 data

Improved functionality and availability of intranets

Growing the gigabit economy, Internet of Things, and Smart City applications

Expanding public Wi‐Fi

Leveraging and supporting FiberNet

3.2.6.1 NeedsAssessmentAs the County moves to more web‐based and cloud‐based services, a fast and reliable internet

connection will become increasingly important to its ability to be productive and to be responsive

to its constituents. Similarly, WAN connections will become increasingly critical to County

operations. WAN services will need to support the technologies required to transmit sensitive

data with policies in place to define FiberNet’s responsibility, if any, in HIPAA and PCI compliance.

The fiber network will need to support:

Fast, secure, and reliable data transfer between locations

Fast and reliable access to internet‐ and cloud‐based services

Secure, isolated networks to support PCI, HIPAA, and Smart County applications

Monitoring of network performance and bandwidth utilization to predict future use and

scalability

9 “Technology Strategic Plan: 2016–2019,” https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dts/stratplan.html 10 HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and PCI DSS is the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.


24

NOC monitoring of outages separate from user‐reported disruptions.

3.2.6.2 CurrentProjectStatusCurrently, there are 17 MCG sites in the pipeline to be funded with successive FiberNet CIPs from

FY17 to FY20. Ross Boddy has been completed. The Good Hope site is currently under

construction and an additional 11 sites have been approved for funding and are scheduled to be

built in CY18 and CY19. The four remaining sites (Clara Barton, Wheaton/Glenmont Outdoor Pool,

Scotland, and Western County Outdoor Pool) have yet to be approved. See Table 9, below.

Prior to approval, there is a need for further analysis to determine the rationale for building to

the identified sites. The analysis for site additions considers the agency’s needs and compares

the overall benefit of the site addition to the cost of construction.

Table 9: Pending MCG Projects Under the FiberNet CIP



A Aquatic Center, 5900 Executive Blvd. Rockville $52,900

Built Betty Ann Krahnke Center, 14810 Broschart Rd, Gaithersburg $49,677

A East County Rec, 3310 Gateshead Manor Way, Silver Spring, MD $68,100

A East County Gov’t Center, 3300 Briggs Chaney Rd, Silver Spring, MD $68,100

A Gwendolyn Coffield Comm. Center, 2450 Lyttonsville Rd, Silver Spring $70,000

A MLK Swim Center, 1201 Jackson Rd, Silver Spring $142,900

Built Ross Boddy, 18529 Brooke Rd, Sandy Spring ‐

A Schweinhart Sr. Center, 1000 Forest Glen Rd, Silver Spring $71,200

FY18 Total $308,900

Built Good Hope, 14715 Good Hope Rd (using separate MCG CIP funds) ‐

A Jane Lawton Comm. Center (Leland), 4301 Willow Lane, Chevy Chase $67,800

A Long Brch. Comm. Center, 8700 Piney Branch Rd, Silver Spring $100,000

Olney Swim Center, 16601 Georgia Ave, Olney $76,700

A Silver Spring Health Center, 8630 Fenton Street, 10th floor, Silver Spring $64,400

FY19 Total $330,700

Clara Barton, 7425 MacArthur Blvd., Cabin John $127,200

A Longwood Comm. Center, 19300 Georgia Ave, Brookeville $122,600

Wheaton/Glenmont Outdoor Pool, 12601 Dalewood Dr, Wheaton $80,900

FY20 Total $611,500

Scotland, 7700 Scotland Dr., Potomac $111,500

Western County Outdoor Pool, 20151 Fisher Ave, Poolesville $500,000



25

3.2.6.3 FuturePlanningAs the County moves forward with various new applications, FiberNet will need the flexibility to

scale to meet demand for on‐site and cloud‐based services and for specialized networks to meet

the functional and security needs of new applications.

3.2.6.4 BudgetaryConsiderationsThe County’s “Technology Strategic Plan”11 notes the following approximate annual budgets:

Government Operating Budget: $5 billion

Government Capital Budget: $15 billion

DTS Operating Budget: $45 million

DTS Capital Budget: $120 million

As stated previously, FiberNet’s annual operating budget in FY16 was $3.5 million; capital

expenses were budgeted at $4.2 million. By comparison, the network offsets an estimated $33

million per year in monthly recurring telecommunications and network services costs that the

County would otherwise have to spend for comparable communications services. The County

expects to continue to benefit from sharing

assets among partner agencies, including

the expanded use of FiberNet. The County

also plans to seek alternate funding outside

of the County budget, which may involve

collaborative efforts.

3.3 ultraMontgomery andBroadbandRoadmap

Beyond its directive to deliver and operate

enterprise services and support interagency

objectives, FiberNet is poised to expand

broadband for other innovative purposes.

DTS, the County Council, and the County

Executive have all launched initiatives for

broadband. Coordination of strategies,

alignment of priorities, and cross‐

stakeholder collaboration can create

synergies with a broadband deployment and network operation.

11 “Technology Strategic Plan: 2016–2019.”


26

3.3.1 ultraMontgomeryAs part of the County Executive’s “Six Point Economic Plan,”12 ultraMontgomery was established

to promote gigabit + (plus) speed networks across the County. Exploring and implementing public

and private partnerships, it will drive carrier‐class ultra‐high speed broadband. Ultra‐high speed

broadband can be the economic catalyst for many community innovations, including knowledge‐

based job creation; innovation centers for biotech, research, and cybersecurity; test beds for

technological advancement; and public‐private partnerships to grow open‐access Wi‐Fi for

constituents.

3.3.2 BroadbandRoadmapThe DTS Office of Broadband Programs, in partnership with ITPCC and with support from the

County Council, has developed a Broadband Roadmap. The major focus areas are to have a robust

County network to enable ITPCC members to meet their missions, to attract and retain business

and a skill workforce to create a future‐ready economy, and empower residents, businesses and

non‐profits to participate in the digital economy.

Additionally, the role of broadband in economic development and societal advancement has

been discussed in white papers, including “Moving Montgomery Forward with Gigabit

Networks.”13

3.4 CurrentandFutureInitiativesRequiringFiberNetSupportYear over year, the demand for bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS) is growing beyond

FiberNet II’s ability to deliver at these performance levels. Upgrading FiberNet at the physical

layer (Section 4.6) and optical layer (Section 4.8) are necessary enhancements given the many

critical County initiatives that FiberNet directly supports. Table 10 lists the approved County

initiatives requiring FiberNet support, both current efforts and those planned over the next four

fiscal years.

Table 10: County Initiatives Requiring FiberNet Support

Initiative Agency Description

Montgomery College Private Network

MC FiberNet has recently commissioned a DWDM project to fully and redundantly mesh the four main MC sites: Germantown, Rockville, King Street, and CT Building. Other sites will be added as fiber is delivered to each location. (Westfield, Gaithersburg, Calhoun & Standish Place)

12 http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/ep/overview.html 13 http://councilmemberriemer.com/2016/05/progress‐report‐on‐broadband‐high‐speed‐digital‐networks.html


27


Land Mobile Radio Deployment

MCPD, MCG MCPD will be implementing a Land Mobile Radio project with six of a possible 15 sites to go operational by 2019. All sites will be connected by a microwave network with strategic, redundant connections to FiberNet. Project details (e.g., the support required from FiberNet) have been developed, equipment has been procured, and changes to the FiberNet optical plant are in the CY17 construction pipeline.

MCPS Connection to Recovery Point Services

MCPS, RPS FiberNet has recently commissioned a project to create a DWDM link between the W. Gude Data Center and Recovery Point Systems, in Germantown. The link will support MCPS’s disaster recovery procedures.

School Switch Upgrades and FiberNet II Connection

MCPS Over the past two years FiberNet has funded the procurement of new switches for MCPS schools. These switches are all deployed. All high schools and middle schools are running at 1 Gig. The work continues to turn up the WAN speeds for all elementary schools. This will significantly increase the traffic on the FiberNet Core.

Additionally, FiberNet recommends the new DWDM infrastructure be chosen as the early solution to aggregate K‐12 traffic over very high bandwidth links into the MCPS data center.

DWDM WSSC, MC, and MCG

Multiple DWDM optical bypass projects. See the FiberNet service catalog for more information on DWDM (Section 4).

Wheaton Redevelopment Project

MCGOV, M–NCPPC

FiberNet is working with the architectural design team to develop the IT specification for this 15‐story shared building that will be operated by M–NCPPC. This will be a major PON deployment on a scale similar to the Multi Agency Service Park. (see below)


28


Wheaton Wi‐Fi Project

MCGOV, Parking Authority

This project will consist of providing free Wi‐Fi in the Wheaton triangle and near the Wheaton Metro stop to residents and visitors. FiberNet will need to increase fiber capacity in the area, design a wireless solution to provide adequate coverage, collaborate with WMATA, and explore further expansion along the Wheaton corridor. $50,000 in funding has been provided for this Wi‐Fi project in the Wheaton Redevelopment Project CIP.

Multi‐Agency Service Park (MASP)

MCPS, MCGOV & M–NCPPC

FiberNet staff recently completed all aspects of the MASP project creating facilities for all three agencies in a modern service park. Services include WAN and LAN connectivity over PON. (See the FiberNet service catalog for more information on PON).

FiberNet has recently commissioned work to multi‐home the MASP to a diversely routed second FiberNet hub. This action will significantly improve the availability of services to this very important service park.

Park Wi‐Fi M–NCPPC Design and deploy open‐access Wi‐Fi networks at 13 selected parks as an amenity for park visitors and to promote public safety. The network will be designed to support wireless camera connectivity.

M–NCPPC Data Center Migration

M–NCPPC and MCGOV

This fall (CY17), MC and M–NCPPC have agreed that M–NCPPC will relocate its enterprise data center into MC’s King Street Data Center (KSDC). FiberNet will build a 10 Gig DWDM pipe between the MRO and KSDC to support this migration. This is a very important tactical move for M–NCPPC because it will provide network redundancy during the Wheaton Headquarters relocation.

Public Wi‐Fi in Government Buildings

MCGOV This project would involve FiberNet supporting public Wi‐Fi at approximately 50 targeted user sites (175 indoor WAPs, 13 outdoor WAPs). The sites include recreation, innovation and health centers, and County government sites. The estimated budget for this deployment is $1,250,000.


29


IP/TV over FiberNet

MCGOV & RCN An element in the recently signed RCN Cable Franchise obligates the company to provide IP delivered CATV into FiberNet for delivery to the Participating Agencies. The estimated cost to delivery this service is $500,000.

Table 11: UltraMontgomery Initiatives Requiring FiberNet Support


East County Fiber Highway

ultraMontgomery This project is to build a new fiber route along US 29 from Hub J in White Oak to ICBN fiber in Howard County at Scaggsville Road. This connection will give FiberNet a diverse connection to the ICBN network (connecting central Maryland counties and cities) and provide the County access to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), the TierPoint Data Center in Baltimore, and fiber at the Pennsylvania border. The fiber build will also support public–private partnerships, fiber/conduit networks for business, and economic growth along the US 29 corridor at targeted areas such as Viva White Oak and Burtonsville Crossing. This route also can be leveraged to connect to WSSC, support Wi‐Fi and operations on Bus Rapid Transit along US 29, support IoT testbeds, and connect FTS's planned Ashburn route cable along MD 200 to the ByteGrid data center. The estimated fiber route distance for this project is 49,579 feet. It will utilize existing FiberNet infrastructure and joint build opportunities to reduce the overall build cost.

White Oak Science Gateway Conduit

ultraMontgomery This project involves coordinating with County DOT to identify areas in the Viva White Oak corridor where road widenings will occur so additional conduit can be placed for future FiberNet needs. The conduit placed under this project could be leveraged for future builds to user sites as well as P3 opportunities. The revised preliminary estimate for this project ranges from $682,000 to $1.35 million. Discussions are underway to determine whether to expand the conduit network to other planned White Oak developments.


30


Interconnection with Fiber Routes to the Equinix Data Center

ultraMontgomery This project proposes to connect data centers in the County to the Equinix data center in Ashburn, VA. This project plans to connect Atlantech Online’s data center in Rockville and to USA Fiber’s Ashburn VA data center connections by leveraging County fiber.

Great Seneca Science Corridor

ultraMontgomery The Great Seneca Science Corridor project proposes a FiberNet connection from NIST to Darnestown Road, where FTS Fiber has a connection to the Equinix data center in Ashburn, Virginia.

Purple Line Fiber

ultraMontgomery This project potentially provides a fiber swap with the Maryland DOT and/or the Dept. of Information Technology’s networkMaryland. The County would obtain access to strands of the State’s fiber along the Purple Line route in exchange for a connection to the University of Maryland. In return, the County would provide strands on Democracy Blvd. between I‐270 and Old Georgetown Road.

Bus Rapid Transit ultraMontgomery This project plans to support DOT’s free Wi‐Fi access on transit to support video streaming to public transportation users along the Bus Rapid Transit corridors. The initial pilot will be along US 29 and will leverage the East County Fiber Highway and existing FiberNet cable to provide Wi‐Fi service from Burtonsville to Silver Spring. Additional routes under consideration are Rockville Pike from Clarksburg to Bethesda, and Veirs Mill from Wheaton to Rockville. Project timeline will depend on DOT’s completion of the infrastructure upgrades for the Bus Rapid Transit lanes and the performance of DOT’s Wi‐Fi pilots.

Fiber connection to DC‐Net

ultraMontgomery This project proposes to connect FiberNet with Washington, D.C. government’s network (DC‐Net) via a peering point at MC's Takoma Campus Data Center. DC‐Net would like to provide lit services over FiberNet to many federal buildings located in Montgomery County, starting with two buildings in Silver Spring.


31

4 FiberNetOperations

4.1 SummaryofPriorMasterPlansThe first FiberNet Master Plan was published in March 1995, as part of the creation of FiberNet.

The Master Plan included the justification of creating a countywide fiber network, the purpose

FiberNet would serve for each participating agency, the creation of a committee for governance,

and interoperability with other state and regional systems.

The 1995 Master Plan presented many cost justifications for the County’s operation and

consolidation of its telecommunications networks. For example, FiberNet replaced G‐Net, a 30‐

mile, open‐access, coaxial cable PEG network that was formerly part of the cable system; that

network had become technologically obsolete.

The 1995 FiberNet network design incorporated synchronous optical network (SONET) and

asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technologies. The original backbone from hub to hub was 48‐

count fiber, solely for the purpose of hub connectivity (not to feed sites). The feeder fiber

connecting the end‐user sites to the closest hub was designed as 24‐count fiber. The 1995 Master

Plan also recommended that the participating agencies share the cost of additional capital

improvement budgets.

The 1995 Master Plan estimated that the network would encompass a total of 550 miles, but it

now includes 665 route miles of plant. Despite that increased size, however, FiberNet’s annual

operations and maintenance budget (currently $1.4 million) aligns with the 1995 Master Plan’s

estimate of $1.3 million.

The second Master Plan was published in April 2002. Objectives and topics covered in that report

included: identifying current agencies’ uses of FiberNet, itemizing the costs per site per agency

for a comprehensive network buildout, assessing agencies’ needs and strategic visions,

highlighting priorities, communicating risks (such as delays), and reviewing the then‐current

broadband industry. Each agency was evaluated and categorized based on bandwidth use and

anticipated needs.

The Interagency Technology Policy and Coordination Committee (ITPCC) was created by the

County Council in 1984 and its policy coordination role expanded by Council in 1994. The 2002

Master Plan recommended the creation of an ITPCC technical subcommittee that would schedule

and communicate operational functions of the network for each participating ITPCC agency.

Currently, the technical subcommittee acts as the active change control board for service‐

impacting maintenance events.


32

Another notable recommendation of the 2002 Master Plan was to have interagency memoranda

of understanding (MOU)—such as the MOU that FiberNet subsequently entered into with

Montgomery College—and service‐level agreements (SLA) to ensure effective sharing of funding

to support FiberNet deployments. The 2002 Master Plan also recommended that FiberNet

implement chargebacks to support future expansions related to specific agencies. The

chargeback concept was implemented for a few years, but subsequently replaced. Instead of the

County providing additional funding to each Agency and each Agency contributing back to

FiberNet, the County calculates a per site annual chargeback to fund future upgrades. The FY18

County Council‐approved operating budget for Montgomery County Government at Item 39

states that the FiberNet chargeback requirement of the County Government is estimated to be

$5,180,600.

The 2002 FiberNet Master Plan also recommended that the policy group explore the privatization

of the FiberNet network and/or cable plant. This concept was analyzed in an Organizational Study

(see below), and the recommendation to continue to operate FiberNet as a fully County‐operated

network with a high level of service was accepted by ITPCC.

The 2002 report also stated that 39 of 124 elementary schools would be connected by FY05.

Currently all but two elementary schools are connected with FiberNet service.

4.2 FiberNetOrganizationalStudyTo assess the current organization and how well it addresses FiberNet’s core directives, an

organizational study was prepared in November 2016. The 2017 FiberNet Organizational Study

was distributed to the ITPCC CIOs in February 2017.

This Master Plan incorporates key findings and analysis from the Organizational Study that are

relevant to strategic planning of FiberNet. The Organizational Study covered a variety of topics,

including key considerations for ensuring FiberNet’s continual high performance, FiberNet’s

recent reorganization in the Office of Broadband Programs (within the Department of Technology

Services or “DTS”), case studies of similar networks, recommendations regarding maintaining

FiberNet within DTS and/or the County, and the planned evolution to an upgraded network

architecture (FiberNet III).

4.2.1 GovernanceThe Organizational Study made several recommendations regarding governance of FiberNet. In

terms of the organizational form itself, the study recommended that FiberNet should remain

within DTS under an Office of Broadband Programs, but with a number of stipulations to ensure

better alignment to ITPCC objectives, better transparency of financial data, and better

management of joint resources from DTS and DOT.


33

The study made the following recommendations to enable FiberNet’s management and ITPCC to

make strategically informed choices regarding the organization of staffing, in‐ vs out‐sourcing of

required services, and efficiencies:

Adopt enterprise accounting

Provide better transparency and tracking of resources against allocated funds

Develop templates for financial reporting to ITPCC as well as sample financial Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The study recommended that enterprise accounting would be best accomplished with a non‐

discretionary account (NDA). In addition to the stated goal in the study of insulating FiberNet

from DTS budget and hiring restrictions, an NDA would also facilitate resource tracking and

financial reporting efforts, and make it easier to generate the data for the KPIs (see Section 4.5).

Additional sample metrics should incorporate allocation of the time spent on FiberNet by shared

resources within DOT and DTS, broken down by project and/or funding area (e.g., capital

improvements, maintenance and operations).

The following initiatives will support these efforts:

Work with the County Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop roadmap for

migrating FiberNet to an NDA; if an NDA is not feasible, an enterprise accounting system

can be developed with an as‐if‐NDA approach

Develop financial categories—some of which track against funding source—for reporting

o The categories should be able to disaggregate contracts, spending, and resource

times against capital improvement/expansion vs maintenance and operations

o The categories should be broad enough to allow outsourced contracts to be

comparable to in‐sourced staff time to facilitate sourcing decisions, and to allow

FiberNet to identify where augmentation contract vehicles may be desired

Analyze and disaggregate current contracts and purchase orders (POs) against these

categories; if a master contract vehicle includes both activation/construction services

associated with capital improvement and routine and/or emergency maintenance

services, these should be reorganized so invoices and costs are clearly apportioned to the

specific bucket of costs in each category

Analyze timesheets to enable similar disaggregation and tracking of resource time


34

Develop and add project‐specific sub‐categorization to contracted and in‐house detailed

reporting so costs can be tracked by project; FiberNet projects specifically identified by

ITPCC as supporting particular strategic objectives should, to the extent possible, adopt

naming that reflects such objectives

Develop coordination between DOT and FiberNet at the management level to incorporate

supervision and FiberNet‐related job evaluation metrics into DOT’s formal evaluation

process for shared resources

Develop proposed financial reporting templates/dashboard—also known as key

performance indicators, or KPI—that could serve as a starting point for ITPCC,

Department of General Services (DGS), DTS, and DOT feedback

At the level of executive oversight and governance, the study also recommended that the ITPCC

Charter and the Change Control Board Charter be updated to clarify oversight and board

responsibilities, and to update it to reflect current technology and services.

While the need for further development and updates of the SLA is covered in other sections,

template MOUs and SLAs may need further development if FiberNet participates in leasing

arrangement with the private sector. Such efforts will require corresponding financial reporting

and categorization, and formalization of agreements with DOT and refinements in underpinning

contracts with outsourced vendors to meet the SLA terms.

FiberNet has created a workplan for addressing the KPI issue (see Table 12).

4.2.2 RecommendationsIn addition to recommending an appropriate governance model, the report highlighted specific

strategic recommendations broadly defined by the following areas of interest: Architecture,

Budget & Financial Stability, Operations, Organization and Governance, Reporting, and Service

Quality and Financial Transparency. The ITPCC intends that future editions of the Master Plan will

explore these recommendations and that the recommendations be addressed in a phased

approach that would be conducive to steady and incremental changes in the network.

Recommendations explored in the 2017 Master Plan include the following:

• Operations (Section 4)

o Develop a formal service catalog

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Reporting (Section 4.5)

o Review available department tools for efficiencies relating to outside plant (OSP)

project management and reporting


35

o Evaluate the effectiveness of tools used for OSP projects and explore alternative

management tools

o Explore project management templates for O&M and CIP projects

• Architecture

o FiberNet III – explore the step for an incremental approach for modernization

(Section 4.8)

Additional issues identified in the Organizational Study will be explored in future updates to the

Master Plan. These include the following topics and recommendations:

Specify and acquire resource management tools

Evaluate new approaches to fiber installation

Evaluate PM methodology and contracts management

Develop agreement and coordination process with DOT for effective resource

management and evaluation

Develop cost estimation and reporting tools and standardized business processes for fiber

builds

Identify areas of training/professional development for FiberNet staff (DTS and DOT)

Disentanglement of assets in hub sites

Develop templates (MOU and cost structure) and business processes for partnerships

with third parties, including DC‐Net

Develop RFP/requirements documents to separate and manage maintenance, repair, and

OSP engineering tasks

Conduct business case analysis and cost alternatives for fiber locating services (internal

and outsourcing models)

4.3 DTSOrganizationalRealignmentThe Department of Technology Services (DTS) was reorganized to create an Office of Broadband

Programs and a Broadband Program Executive position. The reorganization was based on

broadband responsibilities pertaining to current activities and future anticipated needs.

An interim reorganization took place on July 1, 2016 (see Figure 5). The reorganization was

approved with the adoption of the FY18 budget. Along with revising and consolidating functional

responsibilities, new positions were created to focus responsibilities and directions. The

Broadband Program Executive and FiberNet Architect positions were designed to enable


36

FiberNet to consistently perform at the highest levels of service; the Broadband Program

Executive position is designed to create a single point of accountability over all FiberNet and

broadband activities.

Following that interim realignment, DTS conducted an Organizational Study (see Section 4) to

determine how FiberNet’s functions should be organized to best serve the County and ITPCC

members, including whether it should remain in DTS or the County, operated as a consortium, or

outsourced to be operated by a commercial entity. The FiberNet Organizational Study was

published in February 2017.

Figure 5: Broadband Realignment Organizational Chart

4.4 FiberNet—CurrentStaffingLevelsFiberNet needs sufficient staff, both to respond to immediate user requests and to adequately

plan and address medium‐ and long‐term needs. In recent years, FiberNet has operated with a

core of qualified staff that is able to respond to emergency requests and provide basic

connectivity, but may have difficulty, due to workload and time constraints, in responding to

requests to add sites, upgrade speeds, and serve new needs. FiberNet has recently added staff


37

for the network operations center (NOC) to partially address staffing challenges; it is also in the

process of hiring a NOC supervisor. Other staffing additions are in process.

It is also critical that the network be able to stay current with technology and expertise in order

to keep pace with the increasing needs of FiberNet users, and to protect those users from risks,

including network failures and security breaches. Therefore, having more staff than the minimum

needed to handle baseline and emergency requirements is not simply convenient, but a proven

concept.

4.5 KeyPerformanceIndicatorsKey performance indicators (KPI) capture the essentials of a key process. When done right, a good

KPI tells you something essential about the value your enterprise is delivering, establishes

whether the enterprise is providing the service that the users need, and identifies areas that may

need improvement. FiberNet’s KPI workplan is shown in Table 12 below.

4.5.1 GuidelinesforEstablishingKPIsUnlike other performance indicators and metrics, KPIs are oriented toward managers and

executives to allow them to act, to ask questions, to improve. Some KPIs are straightforward, and

common to most enterprises, like budget variance and on‐time completion of projects. Others

are unique to the enterprise. All, however, flow from strategic objectives and goals.

As an example, a modernization project to upgrade hub sites with new equipment to enable

FiberNet to provision Layer 214 services to all customers by the end of a fiscal cycle has a well‐

defined goal for which a clear completion and acceptance test can be defined. Thus, performance

indicators to track progress are easy to define (e.g., percent of sites completed, percent of site

upgrade milestones completed on time). These become key performance indicators only if they

are strategically important—if they enable efficiencies that are important to stakeholders, or new

services, or revenue, or if they present a large expenditure (and therefore risk). They must also

have well‐defined business processes: it is not possible to track progress or intervene to mitigate

risks to ensure success unless it is very clear what the process is supposed to look like and when

it is at risk and why.

KPIs can be developed at management level but must reflect strategic concerns by stakeholders.

They are essential for allowing learning and improvements in FiberNet, for defining what

“success” looks like, and for prioritizing efforts where impact is most important. If done right,

they create their own drives for improving processes and refining the ability to isolate risks and

14 FiberNet is beginning to offer Layer 2 services by using DWDM. Layer 2 will allow point‐to‐point connectivity between data centers.


38

mitigate them, and they promote a shared view among all stakeholders rather than conflicting

definitions of what matters due to differing roles, affiliations, skill sets, and experience.

On the capital improvement side, KPIs generally vary more based on project and initiative and

the specific objectives intended. But FiberNet also operates as a service provider, so in the end,

FiberNet is judged by how well it delivers its telecommunications services. Thus, some KPIs such

as uptime are relatively straightforward. Others may require maturity and better defined

business processes.

For example, to deliver faster intervention and systematically prioritize critical links and public

safety, differing SLAs need to be defined; tracking based on those sites/links and SLAs will be

essential. Otherwise, being able to report 99.999 percent uptime for all sites without differing

SLAs might mask a failure to meet the service requirements for a significant site, while achieving

100% compliance with many less significant ones.

The table below illustrates the anticipated process for establishing KPIs.

Table 12: Anticipated Process for Establishing KPIs

No. Milestone Involvement/ Resources

Target Completion

Status

1 Identify candidate KPIs CTC/DTS 10/6/2017 Completed

2 Kickoff with ITPCC CIOs

ITPCC CIOs, Principals, DTS

10/2/2017 Completed

3 Identify candidate KPIs with FiberNet Architect

FiberNet Architect 10/17/2017 Completed

4 Prepare White Paper / KPI analysis for CCB

FiberNet Architect 3/14/2018 Close to Completion

5 Implement Pilot Database FiberNet Architect 12/15/2017 Completed

6 Facilitate KPI Working group brainstorming session

CCB 3/28/2018 Not Started

7

Identify resources/sources of data for KPIs

CTC/DTS for FiberNet related data, individual agencies for any agency‐specific data

4/15/2018 In Progress

8 Score KPIs on maturity CTC 5/15/2018 In Progress

9 Select high priority KPIs for inclusion in dashboard

CTC, CCB 5/25/2018 Not Started

10 Identify County KPI platforms

CTC, DTS (CountyStat, Tivoli, Netcool, PowerBI, Excel)

5/20/2018 In Progress

11 Evaluate suitability of solutions for KPI dashboard

CTC, DTS, Vendor support

6/1/2018 Not Started


39

No. Milestone Involvement/ Resources

Target Completion

Status

12 Map KPIs against Business Processes

CTC, DTS 6/15/2018 In Progress

13 Implement select KPIs for pilot DTS 6/1/2018 In Progress

14 Feedback/Validate with CCB CCB 6/10/2018 Not Started

15 Implement remaining selected KPIs

CTC, DTS 6/20/2018 Not Started

16 Feedback from CCB and rest of ITPCC

CCB, ITPCC CIOs, Principals


17 Implement feedback changes to dashboard


18 Document generic business processes

CTC 7/10/2018 Not Started

19 Develop ConOps for KPI management and dashboard solution


20 Migrate Platform to County

CTC, Architect, NOC Manager


21 Generate KPI catalog CTC 7/1/2018 Not Started

22 Generate Solution Presentation and Training Presentation

CTC 7/31/2018 Not Started

4.5.2 ClassificationofProjectStatusDetermining project status is a fundamental principle in any project environment. Knowing the

status of any individual tasks allows the owner of the task to determine priorities and resource

planning to complete the task. Additionally, other interested and responsible stakeholders can

have knowledge of the tasks that need to be completed that influence or affect their responsible

tasks. Without clear and structured status categories, effective reporting cannot be

accomplished. Furthermore, it is essential to have accurate and consistent status indicators to

apply to reports, and also dashboards, for project sponsor awareness.

Currently FiberNet status and project coordination is conducted via a biweekly meeting by the

individuals responsible for completing that tasks. While the in‐person meeting is extremely

valuable and promotes collaboration, it is not an entirely effective tool for reporting and

recording historical timelines. (Such information is very useful for future forecasting and goal

setting.) Along with the biweekly meeting, various individual contributors supply spreadsheets

as site‐specific status trackers to other stakeholders. Each of the spreadsheets that record status,

notes, updates, and roadblocks have individual formats and structures that are not universally

aligned with other spreadsheets. In addition, after a project is completed, it is simply removed

from the spreadsheet, and thus performance data is not retained.


40

FiberNet will apply a seven‐category status indicator to each user site, initiative, or overbuild

segment. This will be the first step toward aligning all individual contributors and stakeholders in

tracking and managing their tasks. Table 13 below shows the seven distinct categories that will

be used in all FiberNet documents that describe status.

Table 13: FiberNet Status Indiciator Categories

Status Indicator Description

0 – Candidate The facility is a potential FiberNet site

1 – Requested A participating Agency has requested that the location be placed on FiberNet

2 – Approved to build The location is budgeted in the CIP and approved to build

3 – Permitting & make ready Design, permitting and make ready has begun

4 – Notice to Proceed Construction may begin by OSP Contractor

5 – Under construction The site is under construction

6 – Awaiting agencies The site is waiting for the Agency to perform a task

7 – On net The site is on FiberNet and in production

An Intrinsic value gained by universal categories or indicators for status of tasks is to ascertain

how long the task takes to accomplish. Each task status will have a start and stop date. The start

and stop dates will determine the duration of the task. It will be possible to use historical data of

task duration to communicate and provide effective forecasting for participating agencies’ (PA)

organizational uses. This information can be extremely useful to PAs in making network decisions

regarding issues such as new technology deployments, add/move/change efforts, operational

costs for telecommunications, and general network operations.

4.5.3 ProjectManagementSystemsandMethodologiesA formal project management system can help with many aspects of a project, including

planning, resource allocation, budgeting, time management, and reporting. There are a wide

range of project management systems tailored to fit a variety of working styles, project types,

and organizational structures. They range in complexity from simple “to‐do list” systems to

detailed and formalized practices described over multiple volumes of literature. Such a complex

and detailed system may not be necessary for an organization the size of FiberNet, but adopting

an appropriate project management structure can provide great benefits.

A traditional, and perhaps the simplest, project management methodology is to break a project

into component tasks, create plans for each task, and place those tasks in sequence. This project

breakdown allows for a detailed view of a complete project. Each task can be examined

separately to determine the prerequisites from previous tasks, the dependencies required to

move on to the next task, the resources required for the task, and a time estimate for completion.


41

This allows for more accurate estimates of the time, budget, and resources required for the

project as a whole and can help identify potential road blocks, unrealized requirements, and the

effects that one task may have on tasks down the line. This is called the Waterfall method

because of the way one task flows into the next. Waterfall project management is

straightforward, but may not be well suited for projects with tasks that should not be arranged

sequentially or that have complex interdependencies.

The types of projects undertaken within FiberNet are unlikely to require advanced project

management methodologies such as Agile that are adapted to quick development cycles with

iterative prototypes that seek input from varied user community. Instead, premium should be

placed on interagency and inter‐department coordination at the design and planning stage, basic

PM literacy, ability to use the basic functions of Microsoft Project, and the practice of

understanding the processes required for completion, who is required for each task, etc. Are we

on time? Do we have enough resources? Can we speed anything up or will that blow up other

dependencies? Such questions drive the metrics that give FiberNet the KPIs it needs.

Management needs to be able to ask questions regarding larger risks, competition for resources

between projects and priorities, and other larger issues, but emphasis for most FiberNet staff

should be more on the basic methodology of following a project based approach, and work

together to address obstacles to getting a project completed on time and budget.

Regardless of the project management system in use, some project planning is required. A project

plan will likely include the following steps:

• Identify the project goal, which should include requirements for the project deliverable,

scope, and restrictions

• Break the project down into tasks

• Identify task dependencies

• Identify resources, such as staff and materials, that each task will require

• Estimate time required for each task

• Estimate costs for each task

• Schedule the project tasks, which will require balancing time estimates and time

restrictions such as a deadline for the deliverables

• Create a budget, which will require balancing estimated costs and cost restrictions such

as an imposed maximum budget amount


42

During the execution of the project, a project manager should be prepared to track and enforce

the project schedule and budget. This may require tracking time and expenses as the project

progresses and collecting status updates or progress reports from the project team. This will help

the project manager to identify roadblocks, delays, or unexpected costs in time to make

adjustments. These data can also be used to make more accurate estimate or adjust processes

for future projects.

4.5.4 ToolsforEvaluatingKPIsTool identification—looking within DTS at existing dashboard resources, considering CountyStat

possibilities, and evaluating staff and software resources—will be an integral part of establishing

KPIs for FiberNet. The degree to which a tool will be useful will depend on a range of factors,

including:

• Learning curve for FiberNet staff

• Dependence on vendors or internal staff for using it

• Ability to keep some KPIs internal and to limit access within the organization (not all KPIs

should be public)

• Costs, if any

4.5.4.1 IBMTivoliNetcoolNetworkManagementThe County has access to the IBM Tivoli Netcool Network Management tool, which can help in

tracking FiberNet’s conformance to KPIs such as “uptime” and “mean‐time‐to‐repair” to ensure

that the network meets its goals. The tool is a network monitoring platform that identifies

bottlenecks and other network issues to enable faster resolution and help avoid outages. The

issue management functionality assigns the right level of priority for event resolution. It also

helps reduce manual intervention by allowing for automated scripts against recurring problems.

The tool has near real‐time and historical reporting capabilities to proactively measure data on

network availability and performance, and to isolate the causes of network downtime. The

platform also automates and streamlines network device configuration management.

Another indicator of performance, the “number of site activations done on time,” should be

adopted in parallel using relevant project management tools. Once a site is activated, the IBM

Tivoli Netcool solution can verify the network’s status and update network maps automatically

without manual intervention.

4.5.4.2 GISCostEstimationMultiple approaches can be taken to estimate fiber construction costs. Given the geographic and

spatial context of fiber construction, the most effective method would harness GIS. The ESRI


43

Attribute Assistant is available as a free download as part of ArcGIS Solutions. The Attribute

Assistant allows for rules to be applied on the fly in a dynamic environment. This means that after

drawing in a fiber route, the predefined rules are immediately applied to the route in the

database—which in this case would produce a cost estimate. (See Figure 6.)

Figure 6: High‐Level Fiber Routing for Cost Estimate

The rules would consist of known construction costs that would apply in the different scenarios.

The output produced would be a cost given the parameters; the output could be exported to

Microsoft Excel. (See Figure 7.)

Figure 7 : Output of Cost Estimation Tool

Another part of the appeal of this product is its scalability. Rules are input via a dynamic value

table. (See Figure 8.) In this case the dynamic value table calculates based on a fully burdened

rate of $59 per foot, as can be seen in the “Value Info” field. The rules for when to apply particular

costs can be adapted to find a balance of accuracy and initial data input required.


44

For instances, on the most basic level, a fully burdened rate could be applied to each distance

drawn into GIS. This pricing would be a per foot cost that is averaged out to include everything

from materials to labor. On the other end of the spectrum one could enter rules for all aspects

of construction from labor to materials such as traffic control, splicing, and material costs.

Applying more rules requires more upfront investment in time spent inputting rules into the

system—but, in turn, the estimator tool will be more closely aligned with the actual costs.

Figure 8: Value Input

There are some limitations to this approach. Primarily, the individual conducting the cost

estimate will need to be familiar with GIS to design the routing. Setting up this tool requires a

fairly high knowledge of GIS. Using the tool can be accomplished by training a person who is

comfortable with computers, but not necessarily experienced with GIS. Another limiting factor is

that this tool requires an ESRI ArcGIS for Desktop license—meaning that everyone using the tool

would need a license, or that a desktop would need to be set up to allow anyone wanting to

estimate fiber construction costs to remote into a shared computer.

4.5.4.3 ProjectManagement/CommunicationToolThere are several simple, cost‐effective project management and collaboration tools that can

assist with the timely deployment and activation of new sites. For instance, Smartsheet15 is a

web‐based Software as a Service (SaaS) tool that can serve as a portal for the real‐time progress

tracking of site activations. It can also be used to streamline communication and documentation.

The tool offers a single interface with useful features such as Gantt charts, resource allocations,

consolidation of comments and emails, document sharing, automated email reminders, and cost

tracking. The tool also offers customized interfaces for construction or technology management.

Figure 9 and Figure 10 below depict the user interface for this tool.

15 https://www.smartsheet.com/landing‐b, accessed August 2017


45

Figure 9: Smartsheet Home Page

Figure 10: Gantt Chart in Smartsheet


46

4.6 StatusofPhysicalInfrastructureRemediation,Upgrades,andAdditions

4.6.1 HubRemediationFiberNet currently has 12 hub locations throughout the County. These locations provide

aggregation points for the network’s user sites. Hubs are connected to each other via backbone

cable and each hub connects with nearby user sites via feeder fiber (Section 4.6.2). Figure 11

illustrates the general location of the FiberNet hubs and routes; Figure 12 is a logical diagram of

the same. Note that Hub A will functionally eliminate Hub C by the first quarter of 2018, so Hub

C not shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: FiberNet Map with Hubs


47

Figure 12: Logical Diagram of FiberNet Hubs and Backbone Cable

Hub A

Hub C

Hub B

Hub D

Hub E Hub F

Hub G

Hub H

Hub I

Hub J

Hub K

Hub L

The need for hub remediation became evident during the Inter‐County Broadband Network

(ICBN) project. Funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the ICBN

added more than 100 user sites to the FiberNet network in less than two years—a substantial

increase over the rate at which FiberNet had previously added sites to the network.

ICBN increased the total number of sites on the network beyond the hub locations’ capacity to

serve them. Because of ICBN’s inability to spend grant funds to expand the hub sites at that time

(due to scope limits in the grant), FiberNet served the orphaned sites from the newly built Hub

A, located at the EOB. This was always considered a temporary solution; the County planned to

migrate the sites served at Hub A back to the originally planned hub locations after the capacity

of those hubs was increased via the remediation work. These hub remediations would also give

the County capacity at the hubs to add future user sites.

Due to the amount of effort and coordination required, FiberNet planned to remediate the hub

sites at a rate of approximately one hub per quarter. Priority for remediation was originally set

to target hubs that were the furthest away from Hub A, and to work back toward Hub A over


48

time, to minimize disruption to the ICBN sites served out of Hub A. However, the schedule has

been altered to account for circumstances beyond FiberNet’s control.

Table 14 lists the completed and planned hub remediation efforts.

Table 14: Hub Remediation Efforts (Completed and Planned)

Network Hub Facility Planned

Completion Notes

Hub J – White Oak Complete Completed Q3‐2014

Hub I – Wheaton Complete Completed Q4‐2014

Hub F – Silver Spring Complete Completed Q1‐2015

Hub E – Bethesda Complete Completed Q2‐2015

Hub B – Seven Locks Complete Completed Q3‐2015

Hub G – Gaithersburg Complete Completed Q3‐2016

Hub H – Crabbs Branch Complete Completed Q2‐2017

Hub L – Quince Orchard Complete Completed Q4‐2017

Hub A – Rockville (EOB) Q1‐2018 May move up in the schedule if roadblocks delay other hubs

Hub K – Norbeck Q3‐2018 Park and Ride may be redeveloped

Hub D – Executive Blvd. Q1‐2019 Hub may be relocated depending on

White Flint development

Upon completion of the project, the County may compare the enhanced capacity of each hub to

an analysis of future requirements to verify that the project’s goals were met and that no

additional capacity is needed.

Additional analysis of the remediated hub sites, to assess whether heating, ventilation, air

conditioning (HVAC) and backup power upgrades are needed, could lead to the benefit of higher

fortification. Hub H has already been remediated and could serve as a test bed for performance

evaluation. For budgeting purposes, we note that upgrading HVAC and backup power can cost

approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per hub location.


49

4.6.2 FeederFiberExpansionFeeder fiber in Montgomery County is cable that runs from the hub sites to user sites, with

laterals from a main feeder branching to individual sites. As with the hub remediation, feeder

fiber expansion is necessary due to the ICBN site additions and other potential future site

additions. Figure 13 illustrates the FiberNet infrastructure and planned feeder fiber and user site

expansions in a small portion of the County.

Figure 13: Representative Map of Feeder Fiber Expansion and User Site Additions

ICBN only funded one‐third of the needed feeder fiber routes; the remainder were not

constructed due to project budget constraints. FiberNet is now looking to build the remaining

routes (Hubs G, I, J, and L) as part of its feeder fiber expansion. These feeder routes need to be

built before the County can add user sites to those hub locations.


50

Figure 14 illustrates FiberNet’s original approach to constructing feeder fiber.

Figure 14: Feeder Fiber – Original Build

Figure 15 illustrates the current state (in which new service drops have been extended from the

existing feeder fiber to connect new sites).

Figure 15: Feeder Fiber – Expanded Build


51

Figure 16 illustrates the proposed future state of the feeder fiber, after the remediation efforts

described here.

Figure 16: Feeder Fiber – Remediated Build

4.6.3 MaximizingtheValueofExistingInfrastructureIn addition to hub and feeder fiber remediation, practices to maximize the use of FiberNet’s

existing infrastructure can reduce the cost of new construction. FiberNet already takes advantage

of overlashing cable to existing aerial attachments and it is considering new technologies such as

MaxCell innerduct or placing microduct in existing ducts to maximize the capacity of underground

routes (see Figure 17).


52

Figure 17: Microduct Applications

The benefits of installing these technologies include creating multiple pathways in the same

footprint as a single‐pathway design (at a comparatively lower price than constructing additional

conduit or fiber) and creating joint‐build opportunities.

The microduct technology also has the benefit of enabling pulling and pushing fiber over a greater

distance as compared to conventional conduit or roll duct. (A recent trial installation of a 48‐

count fiber in a microduct pathway in Baltimore County exceeded 1,700 feet for a single pull

distance.)

To provide additional capacity for future needs, the County is considering installing more strands

(larger‐count cables) than it requires when it builds new fiber. The incremental cost of increasing

cable size during initial construction is small in comparison to the cost of overbuilding existing

routes to add capacity. As depicted in Figure 17 above, four 288‐count microfiber cables could

be installed in a typical four‐way microduct. FiberNet is exploring sections of the network that

can be used as a test bed for this new infrastructure technique.

2” HDPE SDR11 roll duct

(with 216‐count fiber,

armored)

Two‐way HDPE

microduct (with

288‐count fiber,

non‐armored)

Four‐way HDPE

microduct (no fiber)


53

4.6.4 DocumentationProcess—PhysicalLayerIn recent years, FiberNet has made significant progress in documentation of its physical cable

infrastructure. It has electronically documented all network routes and most network attributes,

and will complete the documentation in the coming months, once the FiberNet hub remediation

is complete.

The documentation will reap benefits in FiberNet’s ability to cost‐effectively plan and maintain

the network. It will also improve FiberNet’s ability to collaborate with other network providers

and institutions, both in the planning phase and in operations. A reliable, centralized, and

standardized mapping system provides transparent information to potential users and partners

and also makes it easier to establish service level agreements, in which FiberNet commits to a

particular level or reliability and performance.

The digitization effort (Figure 18) required FiberNet to transfer paper documentation of both its

physical routing and its fiber allocation data into fiber asset management software (OSPInSight)

integrated with the County’s Geographical Information System (GIS). OSPInSight captures

important attributes of the fiber such as route, cable count, fiber capacity, fiber assignment,

splicing, and method of construction. The digital conversion was done at a desk by a GIS

technician, complemented by discussions with the FiberNet OSP staff. In general, the conversion

was not field‐verified at the time of entry—relying instead on the accuracy of the paper mapping

and the recollection of FiberNet staff.

Figure 18: Physical Plant Digitization Process

To date, 100 percent of the physical routing has been entered into OSPInSight. However, the fiber

allocation information has only been entered for cables that terminate at hub locations where

hub remediation has occurred (Section 4.6.1). Since fiber allocations in the hubs are changed as

part of the hub remediation work, FiberNet determined that the entering of this data should

occur after the remediation is complete to avoid having to input the data twice.


54

In the future, the County should consider documenting new routes after construction (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Physical Plant Documentation Process

The conversion of physical layer records to an electronic format has benefits beyond simply

creating a repository for data essential to operate the network. This data can be manipulated to

create maps or data sets that can be leveraged by County leadership and staff outside of the

FiberNet team. Some examples of what this data can be used for include working with private

partners on dark fiber leasing and strategic planning to coordinate joint construction efforts for

multiple County agencies.

The County has already taken steps to make documentation more widely available. The updated

OSPInSight data is regularly imported to a website containing an ultraMontgomery smart map

where the data can be viewed by County employees and partners.


55

In order to keep up with best practices for network expansion and required network reliability,

FiberNet will continue its focus on documentation of new fiber routes, as well as recording break‐

fix changes. Additionally, the following steps can enhance the current process:

• Mobile Access – Adding the capability for authorized field personnel and FiberNet staff

and leadership to view information in the field and elsewhere using mobile devices so

that accurate, real‐time information is available as needed and FiberNet can reduce its

reliance on paper map sets in vehicles. This capability is part of the development path of

OSPInSight.

• Audits – Performing ongoing quality assurance assessment on the existing data by

performing a full field verification over the course of the next few years

• Planning Tool – Acquiring or developing an estimation tool that can quickly design and

price potential network expansions in multiple scenarios (see Section 4.5.4.2)

The aforementioned steps are being considered as possible enhancements. Currently, no

budgets are allocated to develop the processes.

4.7 FiberNetServiceDescriptionFiberNet is Montgomery County’s facilities‐based, edge‐to‐edge voice, video, and data Wide Area

Network. FiberNet provides the communications infrastructure and services needed to

interconnect Montgomery County government agency telecommunications and data networking

equipment. FiberNet includes all hardware, software, optical, electro‐optical and support

services purchased, contracted, and installed in support of its service infrastructure.

Currently there are two full generations of FiberNet (I and II) running concurrently and a nascent

successor network, FiberNet II.v (“two‐point‐five”). FiberNet I will be decommissioned by the end

of 2019. Each iteration of FiberNet offers its own suite of service offerings and associated levels

of support.

4.7.1 FiberNetIServicesFiberNet I is a legacy network restricted to the delivery of TDM circuits for the Public Safety Radio

System (PSRS). Edge sites deploy either an ATM Integrated Access Device (IAD) or a major ATM

node chassis. At the request of the DTS Radio Shop, almost every circuit in FiberNet I is configured

as a permanent virtual circuit (PVC). Therefore, FiberNet I protocol has no switching control with

regard to the delivery of voice services for the PSRS. The PSRS TDM network is currently a hybrid

cloud of carrier T1 services, microwave links and FiberNet I circuits. All circuit selection decisions

are made within the PSRS cloud. FiberNet I will be decommissioned when the new PSRS backhaul

network is commissioned in FY19.


56

4.7.1.1 TechnicalSpecifications

4.7.1.1.1 CoreNetworkFiberNet I’s core network is composed of GDC ATM switching equipment. The core network is an

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switching fabric operating at OC‐3 speeds in the core and at

the customer edge. The core backbone is implemented over a partially meshed backbone

interconnecting twelve free‐standing hubs. Each individual hub connects over disparately routed

links to at least three other hubs but for one hub connecting to only two hubs.

4.7.1.1.2 EdgeNetworkATM‐delivered FiberNet edge sites may be connected by any of the following Ethernet standard

encapsulations 10BaseT or Fast Ethernet. Though FiberNet I has the capability to attach sites with

these encapsulations, in a peak load demand situation, FiberNet I is unable to deliver sustained

cell rates of more than 3 megabits with its current infrastructure. This infrastructure will not be

enhanced. Currently this service is restricted to the FiberNet I management plane.

4.7.1.2 ServiceLevelSpecificationsThe DTS Radio Shop is currently the only remaining customer on FiberNet I. The radio shop works

directly with the FiberNet NOC, which provides 24x7 on‐call support, to resolve any service

issues.

4.7.2 FiberNetIIServicesFiberNet II provides WAN, internet, video, and telecommunications services for Participating

Agency (PA) customers. FiberNet II has been engineered to support mission‐critical public safety

applications, eGovernment with internet access requirements (i.e., using IT to facilitate

government functions), and routine daily services such as telephony, e‐mail, video, mainframe,

client‐server, and file transfer applications.

FiberNet II is a common‐carrier‐like IP network providing:

• Transport and routing of data, voice and video content

• Quality of Service marked packets for real time applications like VoIP

• Internet connectivity

• Connectivity to regional networks including; networkMaryland, NCRnet, and ICBN

• PON solutions for campus and office building deployment

• Network operations and control of all FiberNet backbone assets

• PA assistance for all FiberNet services


57

4.7.2.1 TechnicalSpecifications

4.7.2.1.1 CoreNetworkFiberNet II’s core network is based on Cisco CAT65xx technology. This generation of Cisco

equipment has reached its “end‐of‐life” and is no longer available from Cisco. New purchases are

sourced from the aftermarket and are certified by the seller for Cisco maintenance. Cisco will

stop maintenance and technical assistance center (TAC) support for this line of equipment in

October 2022. The core network implements an MPLS/VPN network (Multi‐Protocol Label

Switching to create Virtual Private Networks) operating at 10 Gbps speeds in the core and with a

variety of site specific link speeds ranging from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps. The core backbone is

implemented over a partially meshed backbone of twelve hub nodes each of which implements

three or more disparately routed links connecting neighboring hubs.

4.7.2.1.2 EdgeNetworkFiberNet II edge sites may be connected with either a Transition Media Converter or native

optical GBIC. In every instance, the device connecting a site to FiberNet is either a FiberNet

Provider Edge (PE) switch or a FiberNet Customer Edge (CE) switch. Most FiberNet sites are

directly connected into the PA’s CE switch over an Ethernet/IP link. Circuit provisioning is

performed on a site‐by‐site basis by DTS’s Network Services Team using VPN Routing and

Forwarding (VRF) technology to provide logical separation between all of the participating

agencies.

FiberNet II edge sites may be connected by any of the following Ethernet standard encapsulations

10Base‐T, 100Base‐FX, 1000Base or 10GBase. Customer Edge layer 0 media are either copper or

single mode fiber depending on the requirement.

Including all sites regardless of transport technology, FiberNet II currently serves over 545 edge

sites. Regardless of funding source, FiberNet expects to add 19 sites by end‐of CY18 and 20 more

sites in CY19.

4.7.2.1.3 PassiveOpticalNetworkFiberNet II is now capable of implementing PON technology to extend fiber to the desktop or

wireless network in new and renovated PA buildings. Montgomery County’s Department of

General Services and Department of Technology Services have adopted PON to increase

reliability and capacity and to reduce operational and maintenance costs.

PON eliminates the end‐user switches connecting voice, video, data, and CATV devices to the

core network. These switches are replaced with a single logical gateway (Optical Line Terminal;

or OLT) connecting the user‐base to network resources located in the network’s core. The OLT

talks downstream to an Optical Network Terminal (ONT) connecting the end‐point device using


58

a CAT 6 cable. On the upstream side, the OLT talks to a network core switch/router for access to

applications and the internet. It is possible for the OLT to support devices up to 15 kilometers

away.

Essentially, PON enables any agency to “flatten” the network, remove intermediate equipment,

support disparate technologies, and simplify network support for client devices over a single

structured cable plant operated from a “head‐end.”

FiberNet has developed the expertise to install PON on a large scale as demonstrated by the

projects shown below.

FiberNet II has successfully completed four PON deployment projects:

1. Multi‐Agency Service Park

In collaboration with the Department of General Services, FiberNet designed and installed

a PON throughout the Multi‐Agency Service Park (MASP). MASP, a 132‐acre LEED Silver

sustainable service park, is comprised of more than 30 free‐standing buildings, including

six large facilities housing hundreds of County employees. The deployment consisted of a

single PON infrastructure that supports staff from MCPS Food Service, the Public Safety

Training Academy (Police and Fire), and MCPS and M–NCPPC maintenance depots. All IT

services originate in a single 20x20 free‐standing headend centrally located on the

property.

2. 1401 Rockville Pike

With funding from the Real Estate Office in the Department of General Services, FiberNet

built the Information and Communications infrastructure supporting three floors of a

Class A Office building in Rockville that houses County agencies.

3. Council Office Building (COB) Remodeling

FiberNet staff, using funds from the Department of General Services, provided the design

and construction management for the buildout of the first of three floors being

remodeled in the Council Office Building. The remaining floors are to be built out in the

fall of 2017 and the spring of 2018.

4. Executive Office Building (EOB)

FiberNet, with funding from the DTS budget, will completely replace the network access

layer in the Executive Office Building with a dedicated PON that will initially deliver voice,

video, and data.


59

The Office of Broadband Programs is currently working with the Department of General Services

to design and place Information and communication technology infrastructure in the following

four major construction projects. PON has been selected for the structured cable system in each

project.

1. Wheaton Revitalization Project office building

2. Wheaton Library and Community Recreation Center

3. Grey Courthouse

4. South County Recreation & Aquatic Center

FiberNet II’s Enterprise PON service is provided by placing a PON optical line terminal (OLT) device

in a central network location at the PA building or campus. The OLT connects to up to 64 fibers

and each fiber may be connected to a splitter in a zone box, a small enclosure that can be placed

in a ceiling tile. The splitter connects each of the OLT fibers to up to 32 fibers that connect to an

optical network terminal (ONT). The ONT converts the fiber signal to copper Ethernet (10Base‐T,

100Base‐T, or 1000Base‐T) for the last few feet of the connection to the user’s edge device. Edge

devices can include Wi‐Fi access points, desktop/laptop computers, cameras, and sensors.

The OLTs used by FiberNet II are capable of serving up to 2,048 ONTs and 8,192 edge devices.

Each device can receive selectable levels of capacity up to 2.4 Gbps.

4.7.2.2 ServiceLevelSpecificationsFiberNet II is monitored by a DTS Network Operations Center operating on a 24x7 schedule.

FiberNet models the NOC on the FCAPS16 management framework created by the ISO to model

operations of a Telecommunications Management Network (TMN). DTS has developed a

document that defines the service level agreement (SLA) for FiberNet II services. This document

can be referenced for specific details regarding the SLA. The SLA document does not include

reference to the newly offered PON technology; it needs to be updated to include this new

service offering.

4.7.3 FiberNetII.vServicesFiberNet II.v is a precursor to FiberNet III, which will be based on optical network technologies.

FiberNet II.v uses Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) equipment built by MRV

Communications to deliver multiple high speed (10 Gbps) links over a single fiber‐pair. Currently

FiberNet II.v is using DWDM for the following applications:

High‐capacity point‐to‐point (P2P) links for agency specific connections

Optical separation of traffic to provide private networks

16 Fault‐management, configuration, accounting, performance, and security.


60

FiberNet has successfully deployed DWDM for the following projects:

1. Montgomery College to MAX at the University of Maryland

FiberNet built a dedicated DWDM link between Montgomery College’s King Street data

center and the MAX point‐of‐presence at the University of Maryland. The portion of this

link that is outside of Montgomery County’s geographical boundaries uses optical fiber

built and maintained by Prince George’s County during the ARRA fiber project; The link

provides a 10 Gbps link for Montgomery College and a second 10 Gbps link for the

Maryland Research and Education Network (MDREN).

2. WSSC Great Seneca Water Treatment to WSSC headquarters in Prince Georges County

FiberNet created four dedicated 10 Gbps links between WSSC’s Prince George’s

Headquarters and the Great Seneca Water Treatment Plant. Roughly 80 percent of the

optical fiber path is diversely routed to guard against optical fiber breaks.

3. E911 redundant network for public safety

FiberNet built a highly redundant, fully meshed Layer 2 network among the three most

critical public safety sites in the County. These three sites carry all of the emergency public

safety telephony.

4. Computer‐aided dispatch network

FiberNet built a dedicated, isolated 10 Gbps link between the Public Safety

Communications Center (PSCC) and the Alternate Emergency Communications Center

(AECC) to carry computer‐aided dispatch communications for the Montgomery County

Police and Fire & Rescue Service.

Three additional projects are currently underway:

1. MCPS to RPS for disaster recovery

FiberNet is scheduled to build a major node at Recovery Point Services, which will provide

disaster recovery services for Montgomery County agencies. The node will carry IP traffic

in 10 Gbps increments and EtherChannel as well. The node will also be equipped with an

ASR 6906 switch capable of accepting high‐speed interface traffic.

2. M–NCPPC HQ to Montgomery College Data Center

In support of M–NCPPC and Montgomery College, FiberNet will provide dedicated Layer

2 connectivity from the Parks and Planning department’s Montgomery Regional Office


61

Building data center to MC’s King Street data center. This service will enable Parks and

Planning to relocate its data center to a Tier 3 data center, improving its availability. This

will be especially beneficial as Parks and Planning transitions into its new Wheaton

headquarters in 2020.

3. Montgomery College Layer 1 private network

FiberNet will build a DWDM network for Montgomery College. The network will connect

its three main campus locations and the new CT Building on Corporate Boulevard.

Additional requests for this technology are pending and will be considered within the operational

framework of the ITPCC.

Of special note, Atlantech Online has agreed to interoperate with FiberNet to provide DWDM

connectivity to client Participating Agencies. MCPS has recently requested this capability.

Montgomery College will be able to more directly interoperate with Atlantech Online for UCaaS

and internet connectivity. It is the responsibility of each PA to negotiate directly with Atlantech

Online regarding these services—but FiberNet will be the platform for the services, which will

reduce the overall cost to the PA.

4.7.3.1 TechnicalSpecificationsDWDM is now the standard technology for the highest speed network routes and network

backbones. Using a highway metaphor, these would be the “interstate” routes between the

network hubs—the network equivalent of I‐270, I‐495, and MD‐200. These routes need to be

fast, reliable, and able to accommodate sudden and unexpected increases in demand. DWDM

technology accommodates these needs by:

1. Operating at high capacities—typically 100 Gbps or greater, which is more than 100 times

faster than typical business and institutional fiber connections, and

2. Having dozens of “lanes” of these connections in a single fiber strand, by sending dozens

of different light colors through the fiber strand.

State‐of‐the‐art DWDM technology has capacity for 88 different colors (or wavelengths), so using

100 Gbps technology, this is 8.8 Tbps. Higher‐cost DWDM can operate at 400 Gbps, providing a

significant upgrade capability without needing to build any additional fiber.

Furthermore, DWDM equipment has lower speed interfaces to accommodate a range of optical

and electrical connections within the 100 Gbps link. The DWDM technology assigns each

interface to a separate “timeslot” within the 100 Gbps link, so a device connected to “slot 1” on

one end of the link connects to “slot 1” on the other end of the link (Figure 20).


62

Figure 20: DWDM Service Segmentation Example

FiberNet is poised to implement 100 Gbps DWDM on parts of its network backbone. Figure 20

illustrates how that link is used to segment different types of traffic. In the middle is a fiber ring;

the reliability of DWDM is due in part to the fact that if one side of the ring is broken, the

communications continues uninterrupted using the other side.

DWDM also increases security. The separate interfaces on each side (Public Safety, County,

Federal Research, Montgomery College, ultraMontgomery) are on separate channels from the

other interfaces and the traffic does not use the same routers, switches, or addresses. This is the

most secure type of separation, short of using entirely separate fiber strands, and makes it

possible for a single fiber strand to carry internet traffic and secure public safety communications,

sensitive health care information, and leased circuits from private sector service providers.

DWDM also reduces costs because it allows for a single fiber strand to operate faster and add

more users, reducing the demand for scarce fibers. It also increases efficiency in staffing and

management, making it possible to add users and connections through remote control by the

network operator, rather than physically connecting many separate devices and managing

network routers and switches for each connection. Finally, it enables a wide range of network

governance models, making it possible either for FiberNet to operate with an entirely “hands‐

off” approach to the communications of various users,17 or for FiberNet to operate full turn‐key

services, including managing user desktops and internet access for a wide range of entities.

17 For example, simply picking up and handing off Montgomery College communications at the campuses, rather than needing to be concerned about network routes or addresses or College devices at FiberNet hub sites.


63

4.7.3.2 ServiceLevelSpecificationsThe current FiberNet SLA document developed by DTS does not cover FiberNet II.v services and

should be amended to do so.

4.8 FiberNetOpticalTechnologyMigration(FiberNetIII)One of the benefits of fiber optic technology is its ability to scale capacity and increase the

features of the network simply by replacing or upgrading the electronics. The original FiberNet

fiber from the 1990s supports the third generation of FiberNet electronics operating at 100 Gbps,

almost 10,000 times faster than the 1.5 Mbps T1 circuits on the original FiberNet. Furthermore,

innovations in technology make the current electronics more easily monitored, more flexible,

and more secure than earlier electronics.

FiberNet’s current technological roadmap calls for the implementation of dense wavelength

division multiplexing (DWDM) technology on the FiberNet high‐speed backbone, and passive

optical networking (PON) as the means of connecting individual users to FiberNet. Both

approaches represent an innovative implementation of fiber networking technologies and are

explained in detail above. Moreover, these technologies will provide significantly more options

in keeping the network secure; will reduce the network lifetime cost, the likelihood of failures,

and the network’s energy consumption; and will make it easier and cheaper to add users and

capacity to the network.

The next generation of FiberNet electronics upgrades will deliver an exponential increase in

capacity and enhanced service level guarantees, which are necessary to meet the growing

demands of a continuously evolving and expanding user base. FiberNet is a multi‐tenant network

that has provided carrier‐class Internet Protocol (IP) data transport services over Multi‐Protocol

Label Switching (MPLS) for many years, leveraging best‐in‐class hardware and best practices for

network design at each layer of the network. As this hardware reaches the end of its useful life,

it is necessary to plan for the graceful refresh of the underlying equipment so the network can

remain transparent to the end user while meeting the demands of emerging requirements.

FiberNet III will offer modernized security tools and enhanced capabilities to deliver guaranteed

service levels. Most importantly, the proposed upgrades will allow FiberNet to keep pace with

exponential growth in capacity demands, offering more than tenfold increases in capacity at

every layer of the network.

The existing network provides connectivity to nearly 465 anchor sites, mostly over 1 Gbps optics

that are mostly rate limited to sub‐1 Gbps speeds. A total of 12 hub sites aggregate connections

from these sites and form a backbone “mesh” network architecture comprised of 10 Gbps links.

MPLS is used to provide logical segmentation of network traffic in the form of Layer 3 Virtual

Private Networks (L3VPNs) for each “customer” agency, and enables advanced mechanisms for


64

traffic engineering and quality of service (QoS) to be employed to ensure virtually any level of

reliability and performance necessary.

FiberNet III will not represent a paradigm shift in technology or architecture; rather, building on

the lessons learned in the past and the successes of the current network, the proposed upgrades

represent much more of the same reliability and proactive approach to meeting capacity

demands, enabled by faster electronics and the latest technology advancements. Specifically,

there are two main components to the proposed upgrades:

1. DWDM Backbone – the recent deployment of the County’s DWDM optical backbone

positions FiberNet to expand its capacity levels to meet future needs. This deployment

targeted an increased efficiency in the utilization of the underlying physical fiber optic

infrastructure, but future scalability is another primary objective. Expanding the current

deployment to support many more optical wavelengths over the same fiber optic strands

is intrinsic to its intended purpose, and allows the County to deliver virtually any level of

capacity for internal or external customer entities without depleting physical fiber

infrastructure resources.

2. IP/MPLS Switches and Routers – the current network, supporting up to 1 Gbps

connections to customer sites that are aggregated over 10 Gbps backbone connections,

will be upgraded by a factor of more than 10 simply as a result of the current state of the

industry for comparable products. Each customer site will receive a multi‐gigabit‐per‐

second connection over one or more 10 Gigabit Ethernet (10GE) interfaces, aggregated

at each FiberNet hub onto redundant 100 Gigabit Ethernet (100GE) backbone links. Each

switch and router in the FiberNet backbone will require physical upgrades to take

advantage of this next generation of technological capability.

Network upgrades can be phased over several years to address needs in order of priority and

to accommodate budgetary constraints. Backbone (DWDM and core/distribution router)

upgrades must occur first, but customer site upgrades can occur more gradually on a case‐by‐

case basis. Existing and new backbone components may need to be interconnected and

maintained in parallel during a portion of this transition.

In total, based on 500 sites, a capital expenditure of approximately $30.3 million is required for

the entire network upgrade (Table 15). This total includes contractor support for design,

configuration, and integration of backbone network equipment upgrades. We estimate the

associated annual maintenance costs, comprised of manufacturer support contracts for

replacement of failed hardware, software upgrades, and remote technical support, at

approximately $1.4 million (Table 16), offset entirely or in large part by a corresponding

elimination of existing network equipment maintenance costs once retired.


65

Table 15: Estimated FiberNet III Network Electronics Capital Upgrade Costs

Component Per Site Cost Quantity Extended

Cost

DWDM Backbone Upgrades $236,000 10 $2,360,000

Core Router $3,060,000 2 $6,120,000

Service Edge (Distribution) Router $960,000 12 $11,520,000

Customer Edge Switch $17,000 500 $8,500,000

Design and Integration Support (Backbone Network Only)

N/A 1 $1,800,000

Capital Total: $30,300,000

Table 16: Estimated FiberNet III Network Electronics Annual Maintenance Costs

Component Per Site Cost Quantity Extended

Cost

DWDM Node $30,000 10 $300,000

Core Router $165,000 2 $330,000

Service Edge (Distribution) Router $47,000 12 $564,000

Customer Edge Switch $950 500 $475,000

Annual Maintenance Total: $1,369,000

Estimated costs are based on a candidate Cisco and MRV‐based architecture consistent with

existing deployments, but we note that there are numerous competitive offerings in these

markets for the County to explore within these budgetary estimates. The specific solution

examined anticipates the activation of multiple 100 Gbps wavelengths between existing FiberNet

DWDM backbone nodes to support connections between core and distribution layer routers.

Furthermore, the proposed upgrades include the deployment of redundant core routers (Cisco

ASR 9910) capable of high density 100 GE link aggregation and high capacity distribution layer

routers in the “service provider” edge (Cisco ASR 9904) capable of high density 10 GE aggregation

and 100 GE uplinks.

Phased upgrades to customer edge switches (Cisco ME 3600‐X) would be required as needed to

address site‐specific demands for capacity needs above 1 Gbps (leveraging 10GE interfaces).

Appendix A and Appendix B provide a schematic and detailed equipment bills of materials

(BOMs), respectively, for the proposed network upgrades.

The initial phased approach will identify four to six DWDM links between hubs with suitable

environmental conditions. The amount of traffic, measured in bandwidth, for each hub will also

be considered when choosing the hubs for the FiberNet III phase 1 approach.


66

Existing backbone fibers can support the new DWDM links. Once the core links are

commissioned, traffic will be aggregated at the hubs. At this core phase, no changes are to be

implement on edge peripherals. Agencies and FiberNet users can cut over as bandwidth needs

are realized on a location by location basis.

Further cost analysis is needed to separate current DWDM projects with FiberNet III core

upgrades. Where current bandwidth needs allow, there can be some cost savings achieved by

sharing DWDM links for specific initiative with the initial FiberNet III core upgrade.


67

AppendixA1:CandidateFiberNet3.0NetworkElectronicsArchitecture–IP/MPLSBackbone


68

AppendixA2:CandidateFiberNet3.0NetworkElectronicsArchitecture–OpticalBackbone


69

AppendixB:CandidateFiberNet3.0NetworkElectronicsArchitecture–EquipmentBOM

Candidate Cisco ASR 9k / ME 3600‐X Electronics BOM

Core Router (Cisco ASR 9910) Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

ASR 9910 8 Line Card Slot Chassis ASR‐9910 1 $65,000 45% $35,750

ASR 9910 Air Reflector ASR‐9910‐AIRREF 1 $400 45% $220

ASR 9K Slide guide rail for 19" 4 post A9K‐SLIDE‐RAIL 1 $550 45% $303

ASR‐9910 4 Post Mounting Kit ASR‐9910‐4P‐KIT 1 $‐ 45% $0

ASR 9910 Switch Fabric Card A99‐SFC‐S 5 $50,000 45% $137,500

ASR 9910 Fan Tray ASR‐9910‐FAN 2 $5,000 45% $5,500

ASR9K AC Power Enclosure Module Version 3

A9K‐AC‐PEM‐V3 2 $1,700 45% $1,870

6KW AC Power Module Version 3 PWR‐6KW‐AC‐V3 2 $5,600 45% $6,160

Power Cord for AC V2 Power Module (USA) PWR‐CAB‐AC‐USA 4 $ ‐ 45% $0

ASR9000; Lean Core, Internet Back Bone; For Tracking Only

A9K‐IP‐CORE 1 $ ‐ 45% $0

ASR 9910 Route Processor for Service Edge A99‐RSP‐TR 2 $70,000 45% $77,000

Cisco IOS XR IP/MPLS Core Software 3DES XR‐A9K‐PXK9‐06.00 1 $15,000 45% $8,250

ASR 9900 8‐port 100GE LC ‐SE OTN A99‐8X100GE‐SE 1 $1,300,000 45% $715,000

Infrastructure VRF LC License. Support up to 8 VRFs

A9K‐IVRF‐LIC 2 $10,000 45% $11,000

CPAK‐100G‐LR4 Transceiver module, 10km SMF

CPAK‐100G‐LR4 3 $40,000 45% $66,000

CPAK‐100G‐SR10 Transceiver module, 100m OM3 MMF

CPAK‐100G‐SR10 5 $6,995 45% $19,236

ASR 9900 8‐port 100GE LC ‐SE OTN A99‐8X100GE‐SE 1 $1,300,000 45% $715,000


A9K‐IVRF‐LIC 1 $10,000 45% $5,500


70

Core Router (Cisco ASR 9910) Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

CPAK‐100G‐LR4 Transceiver module, 10km SMF

CPAK‐100G‐LR4 2 $40,000 45% $44,000


CPAK‐100G‐SR10 6 $6,995 45% $23,084

24‐port 10GE, Service Edge Optimized LC A9K‐24X10GE‐SE 1 $400,000 45% $220,000

10GBASE‐SR SFP Module SFP‐10G‐SR 24 $995 45% $13,134


A9K‐IVRF‐LIC 1 $10,000 45% $5,500

24‐port 10GE, Service Edge Optimized LC A9K‐24X10GE‐SE 1 $400,000 45% $220,000

10GBASE‐SR SFP Module SFP‐10G‐SR 24 $995 45% $13,134


A9K‐IVRF‐LIC 1 $10,000 45% $5,500

Core Router Subtotal: $2,348,640

Core Router Annual Maintenance Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR 9910 8 Line Card Slot Chassis CON‐SNT‐ASR9910A

1 $3,445 15% $2,928

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR 9910 Switch Fabr CON‐SNT‐A99SCFCS

1 $2,650 15% $2,253

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR 9900 8‐port 100GE LC ‐SE OTN

CON‐SNT‐A9900GES

1 $68,900 15% $58,565

SNTC‐8X5XNBD CPAK‐100G‐LR4 Transceiver module, 10km S

CON‐SNT‐CPAK10G4

1 $2,800 15% $2,380

SNTC‐8X5XNBD CPAK‐100G‐SR10 Transceiver module100m

CON‐SNT‐CPAK30UG

1 $490 15% $417

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR 9900 8‐port 100GE LC ‐SE OTN

CON‐SNT‐A9900GES

1 $68,900 15% $58,565

SNTC‐8X5XNBD CPAK‐100G‐LR4 Transceiver module, 10km S

CON‐SNT‐CPAK10G4

1 $2,800 15% $2,380



1 $490 15% $417


71

Core Router Annual Maintenance Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

SNTC‐8X5XNBD 24‐port 10GE, Service Edge Optimized LC

CON‐SNT‐A9K24X1S

1 $21,200 15% $18,020

SNTC‐8X5XNBD Infrastructure VRF LC License CON‐SNT‐A9KIVRFL

1 $530 15% $451

SNTC‐8X5XNBD 24‐port 10GE, Service Edge Optimized LC

CON‐SNT‐A9K24X1S

1 $21,200 15% $18,020

SNTC‐8X5XNBD Infrastructure VRF LC License CON‐SNT‐A9KIVRFL

1 $530 15% $451

Core Router Annual Maintenance Subtotal: $164,845

Service Provider Edge (Distribution) Router (Cisco ASR 9904)

Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

ASR‐9904 2 Line Card Slot Chassis ASR‐9904 1 $13,100 45% $7,205

ASR9K Route Switch Processor with 440G/slot Fabric and 12GB

A9K‐RSP440‐SE 2 $65,000 45% $71,500

ASR‐9904 System Filter ASR‐9904‐FILTER 1 $300 45% $165

ASR‐9904 System Fan Tray A9K‐9904‐FAN 1 $3,700 45% $2,035

ASR9K AC Power Entry Module Version 2 ASR9K‐AC‐PEM‐V2 1 $1,200 45% $660

3KW AC Power Module Version 2 PWR‐3KW‐AC‐V2 2 $2,800 45% $3,080

Power Cord for AC V2 Power Module (USA) PWR‐CAB‐AC‐USA 2 $0 45% $0

Cisco ASR9000; No Physical Part; For Tracking Only

A9K‐CORE 1 $0 45% $0

Cisco IOS XR IP/MPLS Core Software 3DES XR‐A9K‐PXK9‐06.00

1 $15,000 45% $8,250

400G Modular Linecard, Service Edge Optimized A9K‐MOD400‐SE 1 $300,000 45% $165,000

ASR 9000 4‐port 100GE Infrastructure VRF License

A9K‐400G‐IVRF 1 $20,000 45% $11,000

ASR 9000 20‐port 10GE Modular Port Adapter A9K‐MPA‐20X10GE

1 $162,500 45% $89,375

SFP+ Bidirectional for 10km, downstream SFP‐10G‐BXD‐I 10 $5,200 45% $28,600


72

Service Provider Edge (Distribution) Router (Cisco ASR 9904)



1 $162,500 45% $89,375


CPAK‐100G‐SR10 2 $6,995 45% $7,695

400G Modular Linecard, Service Edge Optimized A9K‐MOD400‐SE 1 $300,000 45% $165,000

ASR 9000 4‐port 100GE Infrastructure VRF License

A9K‐400G‐IVRF 1 $20,000 45% $11,000


2 $162,500 45% $178,750

SFP+ Bidirectional for 10km, downstream SFP‐10G‐BXD‐I 32 $5,200 45% $91,520

Distribution Router Subtotal: $930,210

Service Provider Edge (Distribution) Router Maintenance


SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR‐9904 2 Line Card Slot Chassis CON‐SNT‐ASR99042

1 $694 15% $590

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR9K Route Switch Processor 440G/slot

CON‐SNT‐A9KRSP4S

1 $3,392 15% $2,883

SNTC‐8X5XNBD Cisco IOS XR IP/MPLS CON‐SNT‐XRA9K600

1 $795 15% $676

SNTC‐8X5XNBD 400G Modular Linecard, Service Edge Opti

CON‐SNT‐A9KMOD4E

1 $15,900 15% $13,515

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ASR 9000 20‐port 10GE Modular Port Adapt

CON‐SNT‐A9KMPA2E

1 $8,613 15% $7,321


CON‐SNT‐A9KMPAGX

1 $8,613 15% $7,321

SNTC‐8X5XNBD CFP2 to CPAK adapter for 10x10G interface

CON‐SNT‐CVRCFPAR

1 $105 15% $89



1 $490 15% $417

SNTC‐8X5XNBD 400G Modular Linecard, Service Edge Opti

CON‐SNT‐A9KMOD4E

1 $15,900 15% $13,515


73


CON‐SNT‐A9KMPA2E

1 $863 15% $734

Distribution Router Annual Maintenance Subtotal: $47,060

Customer Edge Switch (Cisco ME 3600‐X) Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

ME3600X Ethernet Access Switch 24 GE SFP + 2 10GE SFP+ ME‐3600X‐24FS‐M

1 $12,988 45% $7,143

ME3600X 10GE Upgrade License ME3600X‐10G 1 $2,995 45% $1,647

Cisco ME 360X SERIES IOS UNIVERSAL TAR S360XVK9T‐15403S

1 $0 45% $0

ME3600X /ME3800X AC Power Supply PWR‐ME3KX‐AC 1 $995 45% $547

ME3600X /ME3800X AC Power Supply PWR‐ME3KX‐AC 1 $995 45% $547

ME3600X Metro IP Access license ME3600X‐I 1 $0 45% $0

AC power cord (North America) CAB‐AC‐ME 2 $0 45% $0

ETSI Rack Mount for ME 3600X and ME3800X Series Switches

RCKMNT‐ME3KX‐ETSI

1 $75 45% $41

Cisco ME 3600X and ME3800X SD Memory Card 2GB

MEM‐ME3K‐2GB1 $395 45% $217

SFP+ Bidirectional for 10km, upstream SFP‐10G‐BXU‐I 1 $5,200 45% $2,860

10GBASE‐SR SFP Module SFP‐10G‐SR 1 $995 45% $547

Customer Edge Switch Subtotal: $13,551

Customer Edge Switch Maintenance Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ME3600X Ethernet Access Switch 24 GE SFP

CON‐SNT‐M36X24FS

1 $880 15% $748

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ME3600X 10GE Upgrade Licensew/Electronic Delivery

CON‐SNT‐LME360XG

1 $240 15% $204

SNTC‐8X5XNBD ME3600X Metro IP Access license CON‐SNT‐ME3600XI

1 $0 15% $0

Customer Edge Switch Annual Maintenance Subtotal: $952


74

Candidate MRV Electronics BOM

MRV DWDM Optidriver – 100G Add/Drop Node


OTN/FEC 100G Dual CFP, single slot OD‐TXP100GF‐2C 4 $ 16,669 30% $ 46,673

CFP 100G SM DWDM Coherent single wavelength tunable 50GH

CFP‐100G‐DWCHT 4 $ 59,995 30% $ 167,986

CFP2 100G MM SR10 100m multi‐rate 100G Ethernet and OTU4

CFP2‐100G‐SR10 4 $ 7,500 30% $ 21,000

Core Router Subtotal: $235,659 DWDM Node Annual Maintenance

Description Model Number Qty. List Price Discount Extended Price Unlimited Service/Support Web site access with SW & Documentation Updates. 24x7 Service /Support TAC for Telephone support. Overnight hardware replacement ‐ NBD. Cost: 10% of HW List.

SVC‐PRIORITY+ 1 $33,665.60 10% $30,299

Core Router Annual Maintenance Subtotal: $ 30,299


75

AppendixC:ConsolidatedSiteAdditionListwithCostsSTATUS SITE & BUDGET YEAR IN WHICH FUNDING WILL BE ALLOCATED COST ESTIMATE


M–NCPPC $90,409

Built Wheaton Ice Arena, 11717 Orebaugh Ave, Wheaton $39,040

Built Wheaton Regional Park Maintenance Yard, 12012 Kemp Mill Rd, Wheaton $51,369

MCG $532,877

A Aquatic Center, 5900 Executive Blvd. Rockville $52,900

Built Betty Ann Krahnke Center, 14810 Broschart Road, Gaithersburg $49,677

A East County Rec, 3310 Gateshead Manor Way $68,100

A East County Gov’t Center, Briggs Chaney Road, Silver Spring $68,100

A Gwendolyn Coffield CC, 2450 Lyttonsville Rd., Silver Spring $70,000

A MLK Swim Center, 1201 Jackson Rd., Silver Spring $142,900

A Ross Boddy, 18529 Brooke Rd., Sandy Spring $10,000

A Schweinhart Sr. Center, 1000 Forest Glen Rd., Silver Spring $71,200

MCPS $208,561

Built Lynnbrook Ctr NSBO, 8001 Lynnbrook Dr., Bethesda $0

Built Mark Twain Blair Ewing Center, 14501 Avery Road, Rockville (Comcast) $0

MCPS Campus

Print Shop Stonestreet NSBO, 660 North Stonestreet Avenue $0

Built Randolph Depot NSBO, 1800 Old Randolph Road, Silver Spring $49,700

A Richard Montgomery ES, 322 W. Edmonston, Rockville $158,861

WSSC $108,600

A Gaithersburg Depot, 111 West Diamond Avenue, Gaithersburg $53,600

A Lyttonsville Depot, 2501 Lyttonsville Road, Silver Spring $55,000

FY18 TOTAL $1,010,600

M–NCPPC $201,000

A Woodlawn Park Police Substation, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $201,000

MCG $308,900

Built Good Hope, 14715 Good Hope Rd, DGS CIP Funded $0

A Jane Lawton Community Center (Leland), 4301 Willow Lane, Chevy Chase $67,800

A Long Brch. Comm. Center, 8700 Piney Branch Rd., Silver Spring $100,000

Olney Swim Center, 16601 Georgia Ave., Olney $76,700

A Silver Spring Health Center, 8630 Fenton Street, 10th floor, Silver Spring $64,400

MCPS $500,700

Deferred Hadley Farms NSBO, 7401 Hadley Farms Dr., Gaithersburg $117,200

Deferred Montrose Center NSBO, 12301 Academy Way, Rockville $45,200

A Emory Grove Holding School, 18100 Washington Grove Lane $45,200

A Radnor Center, 7000 Radnor Lane, Bethesda $38,700

A Wilson Wims ES, 12520 Blue Sky Drive, Clarksburg $254,400


76


FY19 $1,573,700

M–NCPPC $473,000

Meadowside Nature Center, 5100 Meadowside Lane, Rockville $140,800

A Needwood Mansion, 6700 Needwood Rd, Rockville $195,800

Pope Farm Nursery, 7400 Airpark Rd, Gaithersburg $34,500

Waters House, 12535 Milestone Manor Lane, Germantown $51,900

Woodlawn Manor, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $25,000

Woodlawn Visitors Center, 16501 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring $25,000

MCG $330,700

Clara Barton, 7425 MacArthur Blvd., Cabin John $127,200

A Longwood Comm. Center, 19300 Georgia Ave., Brookeville $122,600

Wheaton/Glenmont Outdoor Pool, 12601 Dalewood Dr., Wheaton $80,900

MCPS $441,000

Kingsley Wilderness Center NSBO, 22870 Whelan Lane, Boyds $90,000

Rica SS, 15000 Broschart Road, Rockville $142,000

A West Farm Depot NSBO, 11920 Bournfield Way, Silver Spring $209,000

WSSC $329,000

A Consolidated Laboratory & West Farm Depot, 12245 Tech Road, Silver Spring $309,000

North Woodside Standpipe, 1945 Seminary Place, Silver Spring $10,000

Shady Grove Standpipe, 8620 Pleasant Road, Gaithersburg $10,000

FY20 $4,024,400

M–NCPPC $1,974,900

Black Hill Headquarters, 20930 Lake Ridge Dr., Boyds $500,000

Black Hill Northern Region Headquarters & Park Police Office, 14300 Black Hill Rd, Boyds

$500,000

Brookside Nature Center, 1400 Glenallan Ave, Wheaton $218,600

Little Bennett Campgrounds, 23705 Frederick Rd, Clarksburg $310,200

Little Bennett Maintenance Yard, 23701 Frederick Rd, Clarksburg $42,900

Martin Luther King MY, 1120 Jackson Rd, Silver Spring $182,200

Olney Maintenance Yard, 19117 Willow Grove Rd, Olney $221,000

MCG $611,500

Scotland, 7700 Scotland Dr., Potomac $111,500

Western County Outdoor Pool, 20151 Fisher Ave, Poolesville $500,000

WSSC $1,438,000

Brighton Dam, 2 Brighton Dam Road, Brookeville $512,000

Colesville Tank, 2201 Industrial Parkway, Silver Spring $192,000

Damascus Elevated Tank, 9950 Damascus Boulevard, Damascus $372,000

Damascus Wastewater Treatment Plant, 23730 Log House Road, Gaithersburg

$234,000

Falls Road Standpipe, 8505 Aqueduct Road, Potomac $128,000



77

AppendixD:GlossaryofAcronymsAgenciesandDepartmentsDGS – Montgomery County Department of General Services

DOT – Montgomery County Department of Transportation

DTS – Montgomery County Department of Technology Services

GIS – Montgomery County DTS division of Geographical Information Systems

HOC – Housing Opportunities Commission

ITPCC – Interagency Technology Policy and Coordination Committee

MC – Montgomery College

MCG – Montgomery County Government

MCPS – Montgomery County Public Schools

M–NCPPC – Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission

OMB – Montgomery County Office of Management and Budget

NSBO – MCPS Non‐School‐Based Office

PA – Participating Agencies

WSCC – Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

PlacesandNetworksAECC – Alternate Emergency Communications Center

COB – Montgomery County Council Office Building

CT Building – Montgomery College’s Central Services Building

DC‐Net – Washington, D.C. government’s network

EOB – Montgomery County Executive Office Building

ICBN – Inter‐County Broadband Network

KSDC – Montgomery College’s King Street Data Center (located the Takoma Park/Silver Spring campus)

MASP – Multi‐Agency Service Park (located in Montgomery Village)

MAX – Mid‐Atlantic Crossroads, the University of Maryland’s government and educational fiber network

MDREN – Maryland Research and Education Network

MRO – M‐NCPPC’s Montgomery Regional Office Building

PSCC – Public Safety Communications Center

PSRS – Public Safety Radio System


78

GeneralARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

BTOP – Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

HIPAA – Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

MOU – Memoranda of Understanding

NDA – Non‐Discretionary Account

PCI DSS – Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

POs – Purchase Orders

SLA – Service Level Agreement

TechnicalATM – Asynchronous Transfer Mode

CCB – Configuration Control Board

CE – Customer Edge

DWDM – Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing

FiberNet II – Second generation of FiberNet network operating architecture

FiberNet II.v – Interim bridge between FiberNet II and FiberNet III operating architectures

FiberNet III – Third generation of FiberNet operating architecture that supports Layer 2 connectivity

GIS – Geographical Information System

HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IAD – ATM Integrated Access Device

IP – Internet Protocol (data transport services)

ISP – Inside Plant

ISP – Internet Service Provider

KPI – Key Performance Indicator

L3VPNs – Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks

Layer 2 – second level of Open System Interconnection (OSI) model

MPLS – Multi‐Protocol Label Switching

MPLS/VPN network – Multi‐Protocol Label Switching to create Virtual Private Networks

NOC – Network Operations Center

OLT – Optical Line Terminal

ONT – Optical Network Terminal

OSP – Outside Plant

P2P – Point‐to‐Point


79

PE – Provider Edge

PON – Passive Optical Networking

PVC – Permanent Virtual Circuit

QoS – Quality of Service

SaaS – Software as a Service

SONET – Synchronous Optical Network

TAC – Technical Assistance Center

TDM – Time‐Division Multiplexing (method of transmitting data)

TMN – Telecommunications Management Network

UCaaS – Unified Communications as a Service

VPN – Virtual Private Network

VRF – Virtual Private Network Routing and Forwarding

WAN – Wide Area Network

fibernet master plan - montgomerycountymd.gov · originally built over fiber plant that the...

Documents