nedas nyc 2015-march 31, 2015 all presentations final
Post on 15-Jul-2015
636 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’
MARCH 31, 2015
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
Opening Remarks:
AMY SESOL, EVENT PRODUCER, NEDAS
Panel Event Sign
Training Session Charging Station Lanyard Coffee Break
Table Top
Platinum Networking Reception Gold Networking Reception
THANK YOU TO OUR EVENT SPONSORS
Webcast and Video
THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS
THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORLIVE WEBCAST STREAMING AND VIDEO
LIVE WEBCAST RIGHT NOW!http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/nedasnyc
THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS
PLATINUM
GOLD
SILVER
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
OPENING KEYNOTE: ‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’
PRESENTED BY: ILISSA MILLER, PRESIDENT, NEDAS
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
‘PEERING INTO THE FUTURE’
E V E R Y W H E R E W E G O , N O M AT T E R W H E R E W E A R E , O U R M O B I L E P H O N E S A R E W I T H U S .
These smartphones enable access to people,
information, email, video, cameras, data, and
much more.
T H E A B I L I T Y T O C O N T R O L N E A R LY E V E R Y T H I N G F R O M A N Y S M A R T M O B I L E D E V I C E
S E E A N Y T H I N G F R O M A N Y W H E R E . . .
PAY F O R A N Y T H I N G F R O M A N Y D E V I C E
Like the GOJI™ SMART LOCK
LG’s smartwatch is a phone, mobile wallet and uses
WebOS
A W O R L D T H AT ‘ W H E R E ’ S WA L D O ’ D O E S N ’ T N E E D T O E X I S T
F R O M F I N D M Y P H O N E T O F I N D M Y S U I T C A S E
Bluesmart’sSuitcase with it’s
own SIM-card (by Telefonica)
T H E A B I L I T Y T O B U Y N E A R LY A N Y T H I N G AT A N Y T I M E
CarsGroceriesToys
Clothes
Assistants
Real Estate
Movies
Hosting Services
Computers
Taxis
Plane Tickets
Designers
Utilities
Insurance
Games
S E L F - D R I V I N G C A R S
O N L I N E S H O P P I N G
W I T H I o T D E M A N D S E V E R Y W H E R E
S H O U L D W E F E E L T H R E AT E N E D , O R E N A B L E D ?
M O B I L E C O M M U N I C AT I O N S E V E R Y W H E R E
Penetration
Fiber
Reflection
I N F O R M AT I O N R O U T I N G & S T O R A G E
• Arenas
• Hospitals
• Office
• Home
• Municipalities
• On the go
I N F O R M AT I O N I S F U N N E L E D B E T W E E N D ATA C E N T E R S A N D C O N S U M E R S E V E R Y W H E R E
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Over 170 Years Ago Morse introduced the electric Telegraph.
32 years later, in 1876 Bell invented the telephone.
128 years ago, the first coin-operated telephone was installed – and now they’re becoming extinct.
Less than 100 Years with Desk Phones!
H O W D I D W E G E T H E R E ?
Herbert Hoover the 1st U.S. President
with a Phone on his desk in 1929
Fantasy books and science fiction visionaries set the scene for today’s mobile world.
1931 a book that describes “a science fiction nightmare city with mobile phones and moving walkways”
1945, in a Wireless World article, Arthur C. Clarke first proposed Satellite communications.
M O B I L E P H O N E S A N D S AT E L L I T E S
The 35th of May, or Conrad’s Ride to
the South Seas
I N J U S T T H E PA S T 5 0 Y E A R S
• The Pager – 1957 in Allentown and Bethlehem, PA
• Modems (datasets) – 1958 by AT&T
• Touch-tone phones – 1960
• Computers – 1964, IBM’s Model 360
• FCC begins to set aside spectrum for land mobile communications - 1968
• The Internet is founded – ARPANET’s four-node operations 1969
• Video and Audio transmitted from the moon - 1969
B O R N I N T O A N E R A O F E N A B L E M E N T
1 9 8 0 ’ S T H E D AW N O F T H E M O D E R N I N T E R N E T A N D I N T R O D U C T I O N O F M O B I L E C O M M U N I C AT I O N S
• 1981 - First cellular mobile telephone service is offered in Saudi Arabia and Scandinavia
• 1984 - Breakup of AT&T; AT&T and NASA space shuttle Discover launch its second Telstar 3 satellite. September 1 - Domain Name Service (DNS) is introduced.
• 1984 - First cellular phones (just 31 years ago!)
• 1985 - AT&T Bell Laboratories combines 10 laser beams on a single optical fiber demonstrating the capability of lightwave systems to carry 20 billion bits per second (equal to 300,000 telephone calls.)
• 1987 – IEEE publishes a paper on Distributed Antennas for Indoor Radio Communications
• 1988 - First Internet Exchange Point established
T H E A D V E N T O F T E C H N O L O G Y C O N T I N U E S
• 1998 - Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Nokia, and Toshiba announce they will join to develop Bluetooth for wireless data exchange between handheld computers or cellular phones and stationary computers
• 1999 - Wi-Fi® brand adopted for technology based upon IEEE 802.11 specifications for wireless local area networking.
• 1999 - Wi-Fi Alliance® founded by six companies: 3Com, Aironet, Intersil, Lucent Technologies, Nokia and Symbol Technologies.
• 1999 - With the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Congress designates 911 as the universal emergency number of wireline and wireless service promoting the use of technologies that help public safety service providers locate wireless 911 callers.
• 2000 - Digital wireless users outnumber analog subscribers.
TODAYOver
356 Million Wireless Subscribers
in the U.S.
TODAY INTO TOMORROW
Testing new Wi-Fi Spectrum (since 2013) Set to become an MVNO
(announced MWC 2015)
Changing laws, enabling technologies, opening up spectrum
S TA R B U C K S C R E AT E S A D I G I TA L N E T W O R K
A M A Z O N T R I A L S W I R E L E S S N E T W O R K
FA C B O O K ’ S A Q U I L A D R O N E T O B E A M I N T E R N E T C O N N E C T I V I T Y
A N E W E R A
• Voice• Data• Peering• Data Centers• Base Station
Hotels• Cell Towers, etc.
AT T H E C O R E O F W H AT W E D O – C O L L E C T I V E LY –
I S O U R A B I L I T Y T O E N A B L E :
W E ’ R E L O O K I N G AT T H E H O R I Z O N
D ATA E V E R Y W H E R E
C O M M U N I C AT I O N S A L L A R O U N D
I N F O R M AT I O N I S U B I Q U I T O U S
A W I R E L E S S - P O W E R E D W O R L D
H I S T O R Y P R O V I D E S L E S S O N S
I M A G I N AT I O N TA K E S T H E M B E Y O N D
I C H A L L E N G E Y O U
Just the tip of a DandelionW E ’ R E J U S T A T I P O F A D A N D E L I O N
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
RFP DO’S AND DON’TSSponsored by:
MODERATOR: DOUGLAS FISHMAN, SQUAN
MODERATOR
SPONSORED BY:
PANELISTS
Douglas FishmanSquan Solutions
Rob LopezRCC
Larry WernerThe Clarient Group
Ray DuTremblayWSP-F&K
Tom Chamberlain ADRF
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
AGENDA
CHALLENGES
NEEDS ANALYSIS
BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS
WRITING RFPs
RESPONDING TO RFPs
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
CHALLENGESPROJECT TYPE
PROJECT (NEW/EXISTING)
WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDER BUY-IN?
TECHNOLOGY
STAKEHOLDER(S)
ARCHITECTURAL LIMITATIONS
SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
SCHEDULE
EXPECTATIONS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
NEEDS ANALYSISo TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
PURPOSE
CELLULAR
FIRST RESPONDER (ARCS)
2-WAY COMMERCIAL (LMR)
COVERAGE
COORDINATION W/OTHER SYSTEMS (WIFI, ETC.)
FREQUENCIES
PROJECT (NEW/EXISTING)
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONSSTAKEHOLDERS
OWNER
WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS
3RD PARTY NEUTRAL HOST PROVIDERS
BUILD-OUT
PATHWAYS/CABLE
AND THEY WILL (OR WON’T) COME?
FUNDING
REVENUE
OPERATIONS
UPGRADES
MAINTENANCE
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPs
“APPLES to APPLES”
DEFINE REQUIREMENTS IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO GET COMPARABLE RESPONSES
EXAMPLE “DO” – PROVIDE AN EXCEL-BASED PRICING SPREADSHEET FOR ALL RESPONDENTS TO USE
EXAMPLE “DON’T” – PROVIDE OPEN-ENDED REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOW TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY IN RESPONSES.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPs
SPECIFICITY VS. FLEXIBILITY
AVOID TOO MUCH SPECIFICITY TO GIVE RESPONDENTS FLEXIBILITY IN DEVELOPING A CREATIVE RESPONSE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ON DESIGN RFPs
EXAMPLE “DO” – DEFINE EXACT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, TECHNOLOGIES TO BE USED/SUPPORTED, ETC.
EXAMPLE “DON’T” – DEFINE SPECIFIC ANTENNA MAKE/MODELS, VENDOR REQUIREMENTS, ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsVENUE REQUIREMENTS
ACCURATELY AND SPECIFICALLY DEFINE THE VENUE OWNER REQUIREMENTS, E.G.
ANTENNA PLACEMENT RESTRICTIONS
AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
CABLING RESTRICTIONS/REQUIREMENTS
AVAILABILITY OF EXISTING FIBER, ELECTRIC, COOLING
RISER ACCESS
WORKING HOURS
COORDINATION REQUIREMENT WITH OTHER TRADES (ARCHITECTS, ELECTRICIANS, ETC.)
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
BE SPECIFIC
WIRELESS CARRIERS TO BE INCLUDED
TECHNOLOGIES
FREQUENCY BANDS
CHANNEL COUNTS
COVERAGE AREA / % OF COVERAGE AREA
SIGNAL STRENGTH (RSSI VS RSRP, EC VS PILOT POWER)
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsTESTING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIFY HOW THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD PROVE THAT THEY MEET THE COVERAGE & TESTING REQUIREMENTS
SWEEPS – RANGES, THRESHOLDS, RL VS DTF
PIM TESTING – SYSTEM VS SEGMENT, THRESHOLDS
CW TESTING
BASELINE TESTING - METRICS
FIBER TESTING – OTDR, LOSS REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsDAS DESIGN
INCLUDE DESIGN WITH RFP, OR LEAVE IT TO THE BIDDERS?
Include Design with RFP Bidders Provide Design
PRO: Allows for a true “apples to apples” comparison for construction of the DAS
PRO: Allows for creative and perhaps more effective solutions for the venue
CON: Bidder “buy-in” to the design with associated coverage guarantees
CON: Variety of designs more difficult to compare/evaluateIF DESIGN IS REQUIRED
REQUEST IBW FILE FOR EVALUATION
DESIGN MUST BE APPROVED BY ALL PARTICIPATING WSPs
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPs
WSP COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
DESIGN APPROVALS
ACCESS AGREEMENTS
INTEGRATION WITH WSP SIGNAL SOURCES
ON-GOING COORDINATION
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsLABOR REQUIREMENTS
PLA REQUIREMENTS
MBE/WBE REQUIREMENTS
WORKING HOURS
COORDINATION
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
WRITING RFPsWARRANTY / POST TURN-UP REQUIREMENTS
LABOR VS MATERIAL WARRANTIES
OPTIONAL EXTENDED WARRANTY
MAINTENANCE / SLAs
REMOTE MONITORING
SPARES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
RESPONDING TO RFPs INITIAL RFP REVIEW
DEVELOP SUMMARY OF KEY REQUIREMENTS
DEVELOP LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR RFP ISSUER
DRAFT RESPONSE INCLUDING ALL REQUIRED SECTIONS (‘STRAWMAN”)
SOLICIT INPUT FROM SALES/MARKETING, ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, OEMs, ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
RESPONDING TO RFPs COMPILE RESPONSES – MAKE SURE ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE
ADDRESSED
WRITE EFFECTIVE COVER LETTER – INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, KEY SELLING POINTS, KEY CONTACT INFORMATION, ETC.
COMPLETE RESPONSE AT LEAST 2-3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO ALLOW FOR REPRODUCTION, MAKING SOFT COPIES, SHIPPING AND DELIVERY
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSESCREATE EVALUATION MATRIX FOR “APPLES TO APPLES” COMPARISON
DEVELOP SCORING/WEIGHTING SYSTEM
TECHNICAL
FINANCIAL
QUALIFICATIONS
WARRANTY/MAINTENANCE
WSP COORDINATION
ETC.
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSES
COMPARING DAS DESIGNS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSESTECHNICAL EVALUATION
IBWAVE MODELING VS. REALITY
QUANTITIES OF ANTENNAS, REMOTES
CONFORMANCE TO REQUIREMENTS
EQUIPMENT EVALUATION (ADRF, COMMSCOPE, ETC) – QUALITY, RELIABLILITY, MAINTAINABILITY, ABILITY TO HANDLE FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES/BANDS, ETC.
COVERAGE – LOCATION OF GAPS VS. KEY COVERAGE AREAS
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSESFINANCIAL EVALUATION
CAPEX VS. OPEX
INCLUSION OF ALL FEES – TAXES, S&H?
MAINTENANCE, WARRANTEE, RMA FEES
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSESQUALIFICATIONS
YEARS IN WIRELESS VS. YEARS IN DAS
RECENT PROJECTS
LOCAL EXPERIENCE
RELATIONSHIP WITH WSPs
KEY PERSONNEL QUALS – PROJECT MANAGER, LEAD ENGINEER
RESPONDENT LOCATION VS. VENUE LOCATION
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
EVALUATING RFP RESPONSESWARRANTY / MAINTENANCE
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN WARRANTY
LABOR
MATERIALS
WARRANTY PERIOD
POST-CUTOVER SUPPORT
EXTENDED WARRANTY OPTIONS
HOW WILL WARRANTY SERVICE BE SUPPORTED?
EXPERIENCE WITH MAINTAINING / MONITORING DAS?
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
QUESTIONS?
RFP Do’s and Don’ts
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
TOWER SAFETY: KEY DEVELOPMENTS
PRESENTED BY: MIKE JONES
CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICERHPC WIRELESS SERVICES
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
DAS & WiFi- A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
MODERATED BY: FEDOR SMITH, PRESIDENT
ATLANTIC-ACM
DAS & WiFi- A Symbiotic Relationship
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Fedor SmithAtlantic ACM
Mike ColladoSOLiD
Chintan FafadiaPCTEL
Jeff BonjaCorning
Bill DelGregoExteNet
Our practitioners have extensive experience in strategy and diligence cases across carriers, technology companies and
financial institutions
Note: Graphic above provides a sample of our client list and is not an exhaustive representation of ATLANTIC-ACM clients
NOW
Cellular, WiFi& PON
ONETM
Unlimited Bandwidth of Fiber to
the Edge
LATERSecurity, HVAC,
location & other applicationsONE
Simple.
network that is future ready
All the Capacity
you need now,
Future Ready,
for you now
Optical Communications © 2014 Corning Incorporated
Jeff BonjaWireless Solution EngineerCorning Optical Communications
ExteNet Systems, Inc. Bill “Shoes” Delgrego, Executive Director
LEADING PROVIDER OF DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS
TO THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY IN NORTH AMERICA
24x7 NOC
in our Lisle HQ
WI-FI
SMALL CELLS
DISTRIBUTED
RAN
DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA
SYSTEM (DAS)
EXTENET
DISTRIBUTED NETWORK
DISTRIBUTED EPC
76PCTEL –NEDAS NYC 2015
PCTEL RF Solutions
Products and Services for all your wireless network design, deployment, testing and optimization
SeeWave
Test Solutions
Network Analytics
77PCTEL –NEDAS NYC 2015
PCTEL RF Solutions
Network Benchmarking VoLTE testing Baseline Testing CW Testing Design PIM Testing RF Sweep Testing OTDR Testing Commissioning Optimization Acceptance Interference Mitigation Consulting
Network Engineering ServicesExpert Knowledge, Exceptional Tools
PCTEL’s engineering services team providesWireless network services with an emphasis on in-building distributed antenna systems (DAS).
mike.collado@solid.com
Distributed Antenna Systems | Small Cell Backhaul | C-RAN Fronthaul
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
DAS DESIGN & DEPLOYMENT FROM START TO FINISHSPONSORED BY:
MODERATED BY: JORDAN FRY
ASSOCIATE, SNYDER & SNYDER
DAS Design and Deployment from Start to Finish
MODERATOR
SPONSORED BY:
PANELISTS
Jordan FrySnyder & Snyder
Ray KramarcyAlpha
Technologies
Jeff RealeIntenna Systems
Art MeierdirkINOC
Fred BancroftCorning
Carla ShafferAnixter
• KEYS TO SUCCESS ON A COMPLEX DAS PROJECT– Good Planning
• Requirements definition, DAS design, ambient signal testing, wireless service provider coordination, pre-construction activities
– Good Execution
• High quality installation, thorough testing & documentation, optimization
– Good Leadership
• Business development, design engineering, field engineering, construction management (pre-sales through commissioning through service & maintenance)
– Good Communication
• Design & testing documentation, carrier coordination packages, periodic construction & progress updates, closing documentation (as-builts)
Architecture Selection:
Passive, Hybrid Fiber Coax or All Fiber
Considerations:
Remote Output Power and Power Consumption
Physical Equipment Size
Upgrade Path
Neutral Host
Services to be deployed
86
Typical networkinstallation
Cat 5e/6
Cell
MDF
Coax
IDF
WiFi
LAN
FIBER 15K ft coax
180K ft Cat 5e/6
5,500 pounds
made SimpleONE™Wireless Platform
Convergence
FIBER
MDF IDF
ActiFi™
Cell
WiFi
POL
3U
7K ft composite
30K ft fiber
700 pounds
DAS Design and Deployment from Start to Finish
All Fiber DAS Benefits
All Fiber DAS Benefits
All Fiber DAS Benefits
Powering Indoor Distributed Antenna Systems
Headend
Coax Cabling
Fiber Cabling
• Power requirement for IDAS network split into two segments: Headend & remote access unit (RAU)
• Main interface unit
• Optical converter unit
• System controller
• Battery recharge time
• Future growth
• Remote access units
• Remote hub units
Headend
RAU
Basics of DAS Power
• Local – AC UPS or DC Plant with Batteries at each remote hub
• Remote – All equipment is fed from a centralized power system in the Headend
Key Considerations
• Length of Back-up time required
• Availability of AC power at each remote
• Cable Distance from Head End to farthest remote
• Space availability for power equipment and batteries
• Individual remote loads and voltage
• Maintenance
• Class 2 Architecture
NEC CLASS 2 Fundamentals
• NEC Class 2 Circuits – 20V to 60V & < 100VA
• Class 2 circuits are considered safe from a fire initiation standpoint and provide
acceptable protection from electrical shock
• Class 2 circuits can be installed using conventional surface-mounted cable (no
conduit, MC or armored cable)
• Class 2 circuits do not require the authorization of a certified electrical personnel
(permitting and licensing)
• Two methods of circuit protection - Article 725 of the National Electric Code
[not article 800]
Composite fiber/copper cableCL2P-OF (Class 2 Plenum Cable Optical Fiber)
• Current limiting panels distribute centralized power over copper cable to multiple
remote iDAS nodes
• Panels include circuitry to limit the total power per circuit to 100VA or must use
an aggregation unit
• Maximum distance dictated by wire gauge and voltage
Headend/Host Site
Current Limited48Vdc Panel
-48VdcPowerSystem
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
AC
Battery
~
=
Class 2 Power Layout
450 VA
70 VA
Non-Class 2 Power Drivers
• AC Powered Remotes
• High power consumption remotes
• Distances exceeded 2500ft
• Jurisdictional restrictions
• Same conceptual layout as Class 2 Solution, except single circuit cable for
conductor & conduit/armored cable installed by electrician
• AC remote fed layouts driven a large UPS in the Headend offers many of the
same benefits of a Class 2 DC solution
Headend Power
• Standard runtime is generally 4 to 8 hours
• Vast range in loads, from 1000W to 15kva
• Equipment voltage commonly -48 vDC
– Can create a dual power system requirement with AC for remotes & DC for
Headend
• Reliability / Modularity / Scalability
• Space and environmental conditions
DAS Need Identification
Budgetary Quote
Site Survey
Initial Design & BOM
Statement of Work
RF Survey
Detailed Design & Revised BOM
Final Site Survey
Final Design & BOM
Carrier Approval& Order
Installation
Commissioning & Acceptance
Proprietary © 2015 Anixter Inc.
DAS PROJECT MILESTONES
Integrator
Integrator
Integrator
Contractor
Common Installation Problems
• Labeling
• Grounding
• ½” Coax Cabling
• Splitters and Couplers
• PIM
Anixter’s Elite DAS Network
Integrators• iBwave certified
• DAS OEM certifications
• Operator Relationships
Contractors• Cabling certifications
• PIM certifications
• DAS OEM Installation certifications
Operations Support is for the life of the service, it should be a key consideration during the design phase, with a focus on key SLA requirements from the contract.
SLAs are usually written for each carrier on a Neutral Host system, be prepared to manage each as unique:
• Uptime (outage time, should not include impairments)• Response time to alarms• Response time to calls / email / portal communication• Mean Time To Restore (usually based on severity)• Time to Dispatch / On-site• Exception / Force Majeure
Design a cost effective solution to meet those requirements.
Operations Support is for the Life of the Service
Operations Support Planning – Hardware & Management• Business planning / budgeting• Purpose / objectives / SLAs to support
• SLA – Uptime / Response time - 3rd party support agreements• Hardware selection – include neutral host support requirements
• Network (including management network) design in redundancy
HOST
MGT
MGT
MGT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Industry Standard alarms and
managementGUI – Effective
NavigationFor Troubleshooting &
Restoration
Management information (by Carrier) to the remotes
Operations Support – Hardware & Management
FIRST LEVEL TIER 1 TEAM
24x7 Service Desk, Incident Management (Trouble Ticketing, Notification, Escalation, Troubleshooting, Reporting…)
TIER 2 AND 3 SUPPORT ENGINEERS
DAS Backhaul Environmental Carriers Security Dispatch
RE
PO
RT
ING
& A
NA
LY
SIS
INFRASTRUCTURE/FACILITIES
MONITORING SYSTEMS & TOOLS
WIRELESS CARRIERSMANAGEMENT / USERS
HOST
MGT
MGT
Design for Neutral
Host Support
Design for Neutral Host Support
Operation Support is for the life of the service
Design a Cost Effective Solution to meet Business Requirements / Expectations• Hardware is selections include operations support requirements• Support requirement designed to meet SLA / business requirements
• Back to back operations agreements to meet those needs• Design in redundancy for “management network”
• Build information (network, site, contact, etc.) database from beginning
• 24x7 Network Operations Center• Capable of opening, updating and closing incidents with carriers• Tiered structure (Level 1, 2 & 3) for cost effective resource allocation• Fully documented work instructions & management data bases• Workflow management tools in place for effective support
• Consider outsourcing – manage the quality, cost and risk of service delivery• On site support• NOC support (typically Tier 1 / Service Desk)
Summary
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
BASE STATION HOTELING- MICRO SOLUTION DEPLOYMENTS
MODERATED BY: JAKE RASWEILER, COO
SUBLIME WIRELESS
Base Station Hoteling- Micro Solution Deployments
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Mark ParrBandwidth Logic
Joshua BroderTilson
Ken SandfeldSOLiD
Jake RasweilerSublime Wireless
Ray LaChanceZenFi Networks
• How much capacity on a pole?
• What drives capacity?
• RAN resource locations?
• Future scalability?
5G What? LTE-U Who?
• Where is the SILVER bullet?
High Density Urban Network Options
BBU
CPRI fed RHU’sDedicated Fiber per RHU2-4 Bands MIMO per RHU – 1 OperatorFull carrier spectrum per band
Switch
BBU
BBU
SC
SC SC SCSCSwitch
Daisy Chain using WDM optics16-48 Channels preferred
Ethernet fed Small CellsDedicated Fiber per SC2-4 Bands MIMO per SC – 1 Operator
DAS DAS DAS
BBU + Radio
Daisy Chain using WDM optics24 Remotes per fiberRing Capable
GbE Small Cells
Next Gen DAS
Head End
RHU
AggHUB
8 Branches
Routing Function Digital optics feed DAS remotes
CPRI Fed RHU’sDedicated Fiber per remote or DaisyUp to 5 Bands MIMO + GbEMultiple operators
RHU RHU RHU RHU
RHU
RHU
Daisy Chain using WDM optics16-48 Channels preferred
CPRI Radio Heads
BBU + Radio + Digital Distribution
About me
• Network engineering background as an Army signal officer
• Deployed large fiber and wireless smart grid networks during stimulus
• Leading a team of DAS and small cell deployment pros
Tilson
• 100 employees deploying DAS, small cells, and macro sites for carriers
• 5 national office, including NNJ
• Deploying smart grid wireless on poles
• Pole attachment people-65,000 in past three years
Base Station Hoteling
Existing EnodeB
Service Router
oDAS Headed
Hotelled EnodeB
Hotelled Radios
Shared Backhaul
oDAS remote nodes
Existing macro site
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THIRD PARTY VALIDATION FOR DAS SYSTEMS: AN INSIDE OR OUTSIDE JOB?
SPONSORED BY:
MODERATED BY: DOMINIC VILLECCO, PRESIDENT, V-COMM
Third-Party Validation for DAS Systems: An Inside or Outside Job?
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Dominic VilleccoV-COMM
Nathan CornishTransit Wireless
David EvansAT&T
SPONSORED BY:
TRANSIT WIRELESS OVERVIEW
CONNECTING THE UNDERGROUND
#1 busiest & largest transit system in North America
4% increase of NYC subway ridership from 2012 to 2013
2.6+ billion NYC subway riders annually
Phase 1&2: 76 StationsCOMPLETE
Midtown Manhattan & Queens
Phase 3: 39 StationsIN-PROGRESS
Uptown/Downtown Manhattan
Phase 4: 39 StationsIN-PROGRESS
Bronx, Upper East Side & Midtown Manhattan
Phase 5: 41 StationsSPRING 2016
Midtown Manhattan & Brooklyn
Phase 6: 41 StationsWINTER 2016
Downtown Manhattan & Brooklyn
Phase 7: 42 StationsSPRING 2017
Midtown/Downtown Manhattan & Brooklyn
New Yorkers are always “on the go” and always connecting – but the one place they have been disconnected is the subway.
• Robust, high capacity wireless network with industry-leading speeds
• Wireless service within 83 Manhattan and Queens stations
• 279 underground stations covered by 2017
NETWORK BUILD PLAN
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
PARALLEL SYSTEM
• Parallel system – Mobile & Wi-Fi
• Distributed antennas for Mobile System
• Access points for Wi-Fi and 4.9GHz Public Safety
• Fiber to the edge parallel to coaxial network
DESIGN APPROVAL: CARRIER
• CMRS requirement for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless
• Current bands:• 700• 800 SMR• 850 CELL• 1900 PCS• 2100 AWS
• -85 dBm @ 95% of the coverage area
Transit Wireless coverage for the carriers includes all public space as well as ingress/egress
• Ingress/egress areas are where handoff occurs
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
1. Construction: Physical Installation by electrical contractors
• Coaxial and Passive Intermod (PIM)
2. Carrier Wave (CW) Testing:• Confirms coverage against RF design• Confirms coverage meets customer SLAs
3. Carrier Integration:• Installation of carrier equipment & connection to Transit Wireless DAS• Confirmation of handoff to outside macro and ability to make 911 calls• Carrier optimization
4. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Testing:• Confirmation of quality of carrier services • Call quality, dropped calls, handoffs, signal levels and throughput speeds
PROPAGATION MODELING CONFIRMATION
RF Prediction
V-COMM Field Confirmation
CARRIER WAVE (CW) TESTING
Between AntennasLower Signal Levels
Cell Band
AWS Band
CW TESTING: COMPARISON TO DESIGN
Coupler Issue Identified via comparison to iBwave
CW Report (Issue)
CW Report (Resolved)
iBwave Prediction
CMRS METRICS TESTING
• Contractual Agreements between Transit Wireless and CMRS provider requires Transit to meet specific RF metrics.
•RSRP (LTE); RSCP (UMTS/HSPDA); RSSI (GSM, EVDO); Pilot Power (CDMA)
Downlink RF Signal Strength
•SINR (LTE); EC/IO (CDMA/EVDO); Ec/NO
(UMTS/HSPDA); RxQual (GSM)Downlink RF Quality
•BER (LTE/UMTS/HSPA), FER (CDMA/EVDO/GSM)Downlink Error Rates
•PCI (LTE); Scrambling Code (UMTS/HSPDA); PN (CDMA/EVDO); BCCH (GSM)
Downlink Cell ID for Trouble Shooting
Uplink TX Power
Typical Quality Metrics Required (taken with commercial devices):
SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLA)
• Service Level Agreement to define specific KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) that measure the CMRS customer’s experience
• Testing performed with commercial devices to demonstrate User Experience (UX)
• Typical KPIs
• Voice: Dropped Calls, Block Calls (Access Failures), Handover Failures
• Data: Throughput (both Downlink and Uplink) Averages and Peaks, Dropped Connections, Failed Connections
UMTS SIGNAL STRENGTH TESTING
Cell UMTS RSCP
CONTRACTOR TRAINING
• Individually trained construction team to ensure quality standards
• Contractor skill sets do not “translate” well for RF work
• RF concepts
• RF equipment handling and installation
• RF commissioning
• Certification program
• Implementation of an extensive Quality Assurance program “a must” to reduce expensive “rework” for successful deployments
CONTRACTOR TRAINING MATERIAL
EMF TESTING
• DAS systems are not exempt from FCC EMF requirements
• Predictive and Measured Studies have been conducted
Measured Results
Adjusted Results
RF Exposure MPE Public Limit
AT&T WIRELESS
• AT&T operates wireless networks in the New York BTA, MTA and CMA in the following frequency bands:
– 700 MHz
– 850 MHz (cellular)
– 1900 MHz (PCS)
– 2300 MHz (WCS)
• AT&T NY Metro DAS installations 50+
• 50% neutral host tenant
• 50% neutral host operator
AT&T DAS DESIGN APPROACH
Internal(AT&T)
3rd Party
Project summary X
Design summary information(system requirements)
X
Validation of venue capacity X
BTS dimensioning X
Design scope X
Validate pre-design data(benchmark data)
X
Design quality assurance X
Design coverage objectives X
System configuration X X
Coverage plots X X
Regulatory requirements X X
LAYOUT SECTORIZATION PLAN
TECHNICAL SELECTION
• Design approach: • RF Passive DAS• Low-power Optical DAS• High-power Optical DAS
• Overcoming Interference• Using iBwave to predict RSSI• Practical considerations:
• Building drawings are never available for all floors• Tenants will impose restrictions on antennas• Space
• Head end• Remote locations• Cable runs• Fiber plant
EMPTY FLOOR PLANS
• Design Criteria: Design for -55dBm or higher RSSI in iBwave to account for undocumented walls
• Prediction: iBwave design predicted -55dBm RSSI for 94% of floor
• Measurement: Walk test results show -70dBm or higher RSSI covering 100% of floor
RSSI (dBm)
Floor Layout
SAME BUILDING – ALTERNATE DESIGNS
Collaboration with third-party designer
Original Design
Alternative Design
AT&T DESIGN CRITERIA
UMTS
Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Best indoor server RSCP >= best macro server RSCP + 6dB for 95% of the transition area where traffic is located, including stairs and elevators.
• Best indoor server RSCP >Best macro server RSCP for remaining 5% of the venue transition area
LTE
Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Dominance Over Surrounding Macro
• Best indoor server RSRP >= best macro server RSRP + 6dB for 95% of the area where traffic is located, including stairs and elevators.
• Best indoor server RSRP >Best macro server RSRP for remaining 5% of the area
ANTENNA DESIGN SOLUTIONS
THIRD-PARTY VALIDATION DISCUSSION
• Transit Wireless
• MTA contractual requirements
• Carrier tenant contractual requirements
• V-COMM third-party validation for both
• AT&T
• Tenant of neutral host
• Operator of neutral host
• Operator of independent DAS
• Third-party help on all
QUESTIONS?
Questions?
THANK YOU
Thank you
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
ZONING, JURISDICTIONS, RIGHTS OF WAY-NAVIGATING PERMITS FOR DEPLOYMENTS
MODERATED BY: ILISSA MILLER, TRUSTEE
VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK
Zoning, Jurisdictions, Rights of Way- Navigating Permits for Deployments
MODERATOR PANELISTS
Marvin WebsterEnvironmental
Corporation of America
David BronstonPhillips Lytle
Lino SciarettaWilson, Elser, Moskwitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP
Ilissa MillerTrustee
Village of Mamaroneck
and NEDAS President
ACCELERATION F BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT (FEBRUARY 9, 2015)
• Provided definition of “Antenna”.
• Clarifies that Collocation exclusions apply to all non-tower structures, not just buildings.
• Clarifies that interior deployments are subject to the same exclusions (and inclusions) as exterior deployments.
• NEPA exclusion for new & replacement facilities in Aboveground Utility ROW if no substantial increase. No NHPA exclusion here.
• Eliminates the requirement for SHPO review of Collocations on Utility poles based solely on age, provided that size limits are met (3/6/17)
• Allows for modification of some existing facilities on non-tower structures over 45 years old.
ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – NEW AND REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES IN UTILITY ROW
• The FCC adopted new NEPA categorical exclusion for new and replacement small structures within active above-ground utility corridors, provided there is no substantial increase in size (10% or 20 vertical feet) over existing structures and that ground disturbance is limited to the proximity of the new or replacement structure within the easement.
• Important - This is a NEPA exclusion, not an NHPA exclusion. SHPO Review Required in Same Manner as Prior Utility Exclusion, so that Exclusion does not hold in a historic district, for instance. Tribal consultation is required for all new, non-replacement Tower Structures.
ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – UTILITY COLLOCATIONS
• FCC adopted exclusion for collocation on existing Utility poles/structures where there is no new ground disturbance and the antennas and equipment do not exceed a specified volume (3 cf. each antenna/enclosure, not to exceed 6 cf. in the aggregate and a total 17 cf. for all equipment enclosures across all wireless implementations at a specific location or node). Not applicable to:
• Collocations on light poles, traffic lights, or any non-Utility structures.
• Not applicable within 250 feet of a historic district
• Not applicable on utility structures that are listed in or eligible for the National Register, or where there is a documented complaint relative to historic properties.
ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – ON EXISTING NON-TOWER STRUCTURES OVER 45 YEARS OLD
• FCC adopted an exclusion for collocation/modification of a facility located on a Non-Tower Structure where there are pre-existing antennas and no new ground disturbance.
• Exclusion provides size and height restrictions (antennas no more than 3 feet wider or taller).
• New visible antennas must be within 10 feet, as measured from centerlines for visible antennas.
• Views of new and replacement antennas must encompass existing antennas.
• No new equipment cabinets may be visible from adjacent streets and public spaces. (see next slide).
ACCELERATION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT – ON EXISTING NON-TOWER STRUCTURES OVER 45 YEARS OLD
• Pre-existing antennas must not have been deployed using this exclusion.
• New/replacement antennas must comply with existing zoning and historic preservation requirements for existing antennas (i.e., concealment, painting to match existing surfaces, etc.).
• Exclusion not applicable within 250 feet of a historic district, on Non-Tower Structures that are listed in or eligible for the National Register, or where there is a documented complaint relative to adverse effects to historic properties.
2014 FCC Infrastructure Report & Order
Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report & Order (WC 11-59; WT 13-238, 13-32)
NEDAS NYC Summit
• “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”
Section 6409 entitled “Facility Modifications”
• “eligible facilities request” is defined as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves
(a) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(b) removal of transmission equipment; or
(c) replacement of transmission equipment.
Section 6409 Provisions (cont’d)
• Eliminate ambiguities in interpretation and facilitate the zoning and permitting process for collocations and other modifications to existing towers and base stations
• Avoid delay of addressing these issues in the courts
Section 6409 Purposes of Regulation:
A modification would be a substantial change if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) For towers outside public right-of-way, an increase in height of the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for towers within public right-of-way and for all base stations, an increase in the height of the tower or base station by more than 10% or ten feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For towers outside public right-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; and for those towers within the right-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet;
Section 6409: Substantial Change
(3) An installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets;
(4) Any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station;
(5) An installation that would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or
(6) An installation not complying with conditions associated with prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding “substantial change” thresholds identified above.
Section 6409: Substantial Change (cont’d)
• State/local government may only require applicants to provide documentation reasonably related to determining whether the request is an eligible facilities request.
• State/local government has 60 days for review, timeframe can be tolled by:
Mutual agreement; or
If reviewing body informs applicant within 30 days that application is incomplete
Section 6409: Application Review
• Recognizes local authority over “placement, construction and
modification” of telecommunications facilities
• But local governments may not
– “unreasonably discriminate against providers of functionally equivalent
services”
– “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services”
– regulate on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions
• And local governments must
– act “within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed”
– if denying an application, do so in a written decision supported by
substantial evidence in a written record
154© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 § 704
(47 U.S.C. §332[c][7][A])
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• No unreasonable discrimination
– Must apply the same rules to similar classes of service
• But flexibility for addressing different visual, aesthetic or safety concerns
– Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 639 (2d Cir. 1999)
• May not prohibit or have effect of prohibiting
– Not limited to outright ban
– Local government may not deny application for a facility that is the least
intrusive means for closing a significant gap in coverage
• Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999)
– “Significant gap” probably means significant gap in carrier’s coverage,
not wireless coverage generally
• De minimus gap need not be covered
155© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Substantive Limitations
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Writing does not have to be formal decision
– Letter denying application, plus sufficiently clear reasons in
contemporaneous written record is sufficient• T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., __ U.S. __ (2014)
• Reasonable period of time
– 150 days for new antennas; 90 days for co-locations or modifications• FCC Declaratory Ruling, 2009 WL 3868811
– Moratoria are ineffective• FCC Declaratory Ruling, 2014 WL 5374631
– Runs from determination that application is complete• Municipality has 30 days to decide or application is deemed complete and time to
decide runs from date of submission
• Can be tolled by notifying applicant within 10 days that application is incomplete
– 2014 FCC Declaratory Ruling
• City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1863 (2013)
156© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Procedural Requirements
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Local governments may not deny an
application to modify an existing facility by
co-location, removal or replacement if the
modification “does not substantially
change the physical dimensions” of the
existing facility.
157© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 § 6409(a) (47 U.S.C. § 1455[a])
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Application may be required
– But documentation limited to determining
whether proposed modification qualifies
• What is an existing facility?
– Generally, an approved facility that already
hosts telecommunications equipment
• A utility pole that does not host
telecommunications facilities is not an existing
facility for this purpose
158© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Modifications
FCC Report and Order, 2014 WL 5374631
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• What is a substantial change?– Changes of more than 10 feet in height or 6 feet in
width• Measured from installation as originally approved
– Anything that defeats the “concealment elements” of the facility
– Total replacement of structure is a substantial change
• Must act within 60 days or application is deemed approved
– Moratoria are ineffective
• Restrictions do not apply to acts in proprietary capacity
159© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Modifications
FCC Report and Order, 2014 WL 5374631 (con’t)
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
• You can and should– Have a local law that establishes procedures and
standards consistent with the limitations established by federal law
– Treat the application much like a site plan application (other than timing)
– Hire consultants, particularly if there is a real issue of “significant gap” or “least intrusive means”
• Do not– Delay
– Discuss radiofrequency emissions in a decision, unless applicant has not met federal standards
160© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Recommendations
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lino J. Sciarretta, Partner
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, New York 10604
T: 914.872.7790
E: lino.sciarretta@wilsonelser.com
161© 2015 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.
Contact
Wilson, Elser, Moskwitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THE MACRO VIEW: BACK-HAUL SOLUTIONS & STRATEGIES
PRESENTED BY: HUNTER NEWBY, CEO, ALLIED FIBER
Wireless Backhaul
Non- Allied Fiber towers with mobile wireless carrier tenants-No fiber presence
5-10 Miles
1-10 Miles
1-2 Miles
1. Subsea Landing Point 4A. Third Party Towers with New Third Party Fiber Lateral Construction
2. Dual Fiber Ducts 4B. Third Party Towers with Third Party Microwave Backhaul
3. Allied Fiber Colocation 5. Data Center / Carrier Hotel
4. Allied Fiber Cell Towers
1
2
3
4
5
4A4B
Small Cell Backhaul = X 1,000
Allied Fiber Southeast Segment
Colocation AccessRoute Access
727 total route miles
- 364 +/- route miles from Miami, FL, to Jacksonville, FL
- 363 +/- route miles from Jacksonville, FL, to Atlanta, GA
Florida East Coast Railway (“FECR”) Right-of-Way
(“RoW”) agreement completed; Norfolk Southern Railway
(“NS”) Right-of-Way agreement completed and executed
Last “fully-built” underground conduits available along
corridor
3 new undersea cables terminating in Jacksonville and
Boca Raton, FL, provide fiber access to South America,
Europe and the Caribbean
Fiber Access
Intermediate access points at least every 3,000 / 5,000 (feet
depending on the route)
- Allows wireless operators and enterprises to efficiently connect to a network-neutral fiber backbone
Dark fiber access points enable much needed rural broadband
solution
More than 250 towers already connected to the Allied Fiber
system
Network-neutral facilities located every 60 miles
- Accommodates long-haul signal regeneration equipment, short-haul customer and local colocation customer interconnection
Improves network control, performance and reduces latency
Distributed Internet Exchange architecture begin designed to carry
FL-IX
Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc..
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
Questions?
Thank you!
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
CLOSING REMARKS
THIRD ANNUAL NYC IN-BUILDING WIRELESS SUMMIT
March 31, 2015
Museum of Jewish Heritage, Manhattan
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING
THANK YOU TO OUR PLATINUM NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS
THANK YOU TO OUR GOLD NETWORKING RECEPTION SPONSORS
Panel Event Sign
Training Session Charging Station Lanyard Coffee Break
Table Top
Platinum Networking Reception Gold Networking Reception
THANK YOU TO OUR EVENT SPONSORS
Webcast and Video
THANK YOU TO OUR MEDIA PARTNERS
THANK YOU TO OUR WEBCAST AND VIDEOSPONSOR
THANK YOU TO OUR ANNUAL SPONSORS
PLATINUM
GOLD
SILVER
AMAZING ATTENDEES!
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING
top related