Upload
masudrana7300
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
1/44
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
2/44
Page2of44
TableofContents
Page
1. Executive
Summary
provided
by
the
Kativik
Regional
Government
(KRG)
4
2. Introduction 9
3. Methodology 10
4. FibreOpticNetworkOptions 10
a. IndicativeFibreonlynetworkoption 11
b. ArcticFibreInc.Proposal 18
c. Terrestrial
Fibre
options
20
5. MicrowaveRadioOptions 21
6. SatelliteOptions 24
7. SummaryofOperatingExpensescostestimate 26
8. EnvironmentalAssessmentConsiderations 26
9. FibreOpticNetworkCostComparisons 28
10. Interconnection
Options
34
11. OverallComparisonofSatellite,FibreOpticsandMicrowaveRadioTechnologies 37
12. ComparisonofNetworkExpansionAlternatives CostandOperatingExpenses 41
13. ProjectedProjectImplementationtimes 44
14. Conclusions 44
Appendices
Attachments
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
3/44
Page3of44
ListofFigures
1. IndicativeFibreOpticNetworkOption 11
2. Major
Shipping
Routes
15
3. ExtentofNunavikMarineRegion 16
4. ArcticFibreIncCanadianNetworkProposal 18
5. ArcticFibreNetwork 19
6. NANFibreOpticNetwork 20
7. IndicativeMicrowaveRadioDesign 23
8.
CombinedFibrewithRadioLinktoSchefferville 29
9. FibreRingwithMicrowaveRadiotoSmallerCommunities 30
10. CombinedFibreandSatelliteNetworkOption 31
11. MapofRailwayfromSeptIslestoSchefferville 34
12. EeyouCommunicationsNetwork 35
13. IllustrativeComparisonofTelecommunicationsBackboneNetworkAlternatives 40
Listof
Tables
1. TideFluctuationsinNunavik 13
2. SatelliteCapitalCostEstimateinExistingRemoteEarthStations 25
3. CapitalCostEstimateforKaBandGatewayEarthStation 25
4. SatelliteNetworkCostEstimateforCandKBand Technologies 26
5. CapitalCostComparisonforFibreOpticNetworkAlternatives 32
6. FibreOptic
Network
Options
Recurring
Costs
33
7. NetworkAlternativesthatMeetKRG2021CapacityRequirements 42
8. NetworkAlternativesthatmeetKRG2016CapacityRequirements 43
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
4/44
Page4of44
1. SummaryofPrefeasibilityStudyforahighcapacitynetworkinNunavik(providedbyKativikRegionalGovernment,KRG).
GoaloftheStudyThe
goal
of
the
study
was
to
provide
KRG
with
the
feasibility,
cost
and
timeframe
for
building
ahigh
capacity
networkinNunavik.
Thecapacityrequirementswerebasedprimarilyontwocriteria.ThefirstwastoallowTamaaniInternetto
meettheCRTCrecommendedgoalofprovidingInternetservicewitha5Mbsofactualdownloadspeedby
2015.Theprojectedneedsfor2016(below)wereestablishedonthisbasis.Thesecondcriterionusedwasto
lookathistoricalgrowthofnetworkusageonTamaaniInternetsnetworkfrom2004to2012whichincreased
30fold.ItisreasonabletoassumethatasworldwideInternetrequirementscontinuetogrowTamaani
Internetsnetworkmustkeeppace.A30foldincreaseisthereforeexpectedtobenecessaryby2021.
The
study
looked
at
new
technologies
to
meet
these
needs
because
current
technology
will
not
scale
to
meet
growingdemand.Inordertomeetthe2016targetswithcurrenttechnology,thecapacityofafullsatellite
dedicatedtoNunavik,estimatedtocost$25millionperyear,wouldberequired.Tomeetthe2021targets
usingcurrenttechnology,thecapacityofthreecompletesatellites,estimatedat$75millionperyear,wouldbe
needed.Clearly,anewapproachisneededtomeetthegrowingdemand.
TheparametersprovidedbyKRGareasfollows:
Community Currentcapacity
Mbs(satellite)
ProjectedNeed
2016Mbs
Projectedneed
2021Mbs
Akulivik 10 100 300
Aupaluk
10
100
300Inukjuak 25 250 750
Ivujivik 10 100 300
Kangirsuk 10 100 300
Kangiqsualujjuaq 10 100 300
Kangiqsujuaq 10 100 300
Kuujjuaq 65 650 1950
Kuujjuarapik 18 180 540
Puvirnituq 29 290 870
Quaqtaq 10 100 300
Salluit 19 190 570
Tasiujuaq
10
100
300Umiujaq 10 100 300
Total 246 2460 7380
Theconsultantwasaskedtoevaluatethefeasibility,costandtimeframeofbuildinganetworktomeetthese
targets.Inaddition,somevendorprovidedsolutionsproposedbyArcticFibre,TelesatandiCommwerealso
evaluated.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
5/44
Page5of44
FeasibilityThestudydeterminedthattherearethreefeasibletechnologiestomeetthegoals:
1.
Underseaopticalfibrenetwork
2. Microwavetowernetwork
3. Highcapacitysatellitenetwork
Inallscenarioswithunderseaopticalfibreormicrowavetowersweassumethatwewouldbeableto
interconnectwiththeEeyouCommunicationNetworkinChisasibiandviaaproposedfibreopticnetworkthat
maybebuiltfromScheffervilletoSeptIsle.Thetransportfromthesenortherncommunitiestothesouthadds
asignificantoperatingcostbecauseoftheirownremotenessfromurbancenters.
Inadditiontothese,severalscenarioswereexaminedinwhichtwoormoreofthesetechnologieswouldbe
usedtogethertooptimisethecost,performanceandstabilityofthenetwork.Atotalofsevenscenarioswere
analysed:
1. UnderseafibreringtoallcommunitieswithlandbaseopticalfibrefromKuujjuaqtoSchefferville;
2. ArcticFibresproposaltoconnectelevencommunitieswithunderseafibreandthreewithmicrowave
towers;
3. UnderseafibreringtoallcommunitieswithmicrowavetowersfromKuujjuaqtoSchefferville;
4. Underseafibretoninecommunities(includingDeceptionbay),microwavetowerstosixcommunities
andmicrowavefromKuujjuaqtoSchefferville;
5. Underseafibretoeightcommunities(includingDeceptionbay),highspeedsatellitetofive
communitiesandahighspeedsatelliteteleportinKuujjuaq;
6. HighspeedsatellitetoallcommunitieswithsomeCbandsatelliteretainedforNorthernvillageto
Northernvillage
applications;
7. Microwavenetworktoallcommunitieswhichwouldonlymeetthe2016objectiveof2.5Gbsbutnot
the2021objectiveof7.4Gbs.
Itshouldbenotedthatthesetechnologiesarenotnecessarilyequal.Microwavetowersandhighcapacity
satellitesaresusceptibletoadverseeffectsfrombadweatherandradiofrequencyinterference,although
modernsatelliteequipmentcan,inmanycases,mitigatetheeffectsofweatherwithlittleornoimpacton
performance.Thedesignsforsatelliteandmicrowaveweredonewithanavailabilitytargetof99.99%.An
opticalfibrenetworkisnotsubjecttoweathereffectorradiofrequencyinterference.Highspeedsatellite
technologyhashighlatencyandcontinuestobeproblematicforlatencysensitiveapplicationswhichwillnot
functionwell,oratall,inahighlatencyenvironmentregardlessofthespeedofthenetwork.Latencyisnotan
issuefor
microwave
towers
or
optical
fibre
networks.
The
high
speed
satellite
scenario
that
was
studied
is
asymmetrical;itsdownloadcapacitywouldmeetthebandwidthtargetbuttheuploadcapacityissignificantly
lower.Asymmetryisastandarddesigninsatellitenetworkingandistypicallyadequateformostpresentday
needs.Itisdifficulttopredicttheimpactofthisdesignconsiderationonnetworkusagethatwillbeoccurring
fifteenyearsintothefuturewithuploadintensiveapplicationssuchascloudcomputingbecomingmore
common.Opticalfibreandmicrowavetowernetworksareinherentlysymmetricalandthisissueisnota
concernwiththesetechnologies.Lastly,opticalfibrecouldbeeasilyandinexpensivelyupgradedtovastly
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
6/44
Page6of44
exceedthe2021goalof7.4Gbswhereasbothmicrowavetowersandhighspeedsatellitewouldrequire
significantcapitalexpendituretoupgradeafterthenetworkisbuilt.Itshouldbenotedhoweverthatwhile
opticalfibreistechnologicallycapableofprovidingvirtuallyunlimitedbandwidth,therealityisthatoptical
fibrenetworkgrowthwouldbelimitedbytheinterconnectioncostwithnorthernproviders.
Thetimeframeforconstructionofprojectsisestimatedattwoyearsforanysolution.Anenvironmental
impactassessmentwouldberequiredforanopticalfibrenetworkandisestimatedtotaketwoyears.Fora
microwavetowernetwork,theestimateddurationoftheenvironmentalimpactassessmentwouldbeone
year.Noenvironmentalimpactassessmentisexpectedforasatellitenetwork.Thetotaltimeframetobuilda
highcapacitynetworkisthereforeestimatedattwotofouryears.
Inthescenariosthatwereexamined,anopticalfibreormicrowavenetworkwouldrelyonagreementswith
existingnorthernprovidersandinthecaseofconnectingthroughSchefferville,reliesonanetworksegment
thathasyettobebuilt.Thisintroducesasignificantamountofuncertaintywithregardstothosescenarios.
TheexceptionistheArcticFibreprojectwhichproposestobuildaselfhealingnetworkwiththreeseparate
pathstotheInternet.AccesstoArcticFibresinternationalbackbonewouldprovideanadvantageintermof
reliabilitytheeventofasinglebackbonecablebreak,asopposedtoanetworkthatwouldinterconnect
exclusivelytonorthernQuebecproviders.
SummaryofcomparisonOpticalFibre MicrowaveTowers HighSpeedSatelliteVerylowlatency Lowlatency Highlatency
Highmaximumcapacity Lowmaximumcapacity ModerateCapacity
Symmetrical(uploadand
downloadcapacity
are
equal)
Symmetrical(uploadand
downloadcapacity
are
equal)
Asymmetrical(uploadcapacityis
lowerthan
download
capacity)
Veryhighavailability Moderateavailability(subjectto
rainfade)
Highavailability(somewhat
subjecttorainfade)
Lifespan2030years Lifespan20years Lifespan1520years
Inexpensivetoupgradebeyond
2021goal
Highcosttoupgradebeyond
2016goal
Highcosttoupgradebeyond
2021goal
Longertimetobuild(~4years)
(environmentalassessmentfor
landandwater)
Moderatetimetobuild(~3
years)(environmental
assessmentforland)
Shortertimetobuild(~2years)
(noenvironmentalassessment
expected)
Interconnectionisexpensive
(transportfrom
Chisasibi/Scheffervilletosouth)
Interconnectionisexpensive
(transportfrom
Chisasibi/Scheffervilletosouth)
Interconnectionisinexpensive
(gatewayisinthesouth)
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
7/44
Page7of44
CostsandTimeframeAsummaryofcapital,operatingandtotalcostsforeachisasfollows:
SystemConfiguration CapitalCost AverageAnnual
OperatingCost
TotalCost
(notadjusted
forinflation)
TotalCostperyear
AllFibreOption $158M $6.2M $282M $14.1M(20years)
ArcticFibre $135M1
($155M)2
ArcticFibreusesa
"Utility"business
model,andongoing
costsare
dependenton
the
numberofuserson
thesystem
ArcticFibreusesa
"Utility"business
model,andongoing
costsare
dependenton
the
numberofuserson
thesystem
Costperyearwill
dependonUtility
pricing.
Fibreplusmicrowave
KuujjuaqtoSchefferville
$139M $6.3M $265M $13.3M(20years)
Fibreplusmicrowaveto6
communitiesand
Schefferville
$132M $7M $272M $13.6M(20years)
Fibreplussatelliteto5
communities
$130M $5M $202M $13.7M(15years)3
$10.2M
(20
years)
3
SatelliteKaBandandCband
$94M $2M $125M $8.3M(15years)
AllMicrowave(Didnotmeetallcriteria)
$68M $4.8M $164M
$8.2M(20years)
1ArcticFibreprovidedcoststhatassumeda5%contingency
2Thestudyuseda20%contingencyinallcostestimatesandthisvaluereflectscostsprovidedbyArcticFibrebutcalculatedat20%
contingency3
Expected
lifespan
of
optical
fibre
is
20
years.
Expected
lifespan
of
asatellite
is
15
years.
The
amortisation
is
shown
at
both
15
and
20
yearssincethisoptionusesbothtechnologies.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
8/44
Page8of44
AnalysisOnthebasisofpuretechnologicalmerit,anopticalfibrenetworkissuperiortoasatellitenetworkfor
broadbandInternetapplications.However,ourstudyshowsthatonthebasisofpureeconomicmerit,next
generationKa
band
satellite
may
be
superior
for
at
least
fifteen
more
years,
with
one
important
caveat:
this
solutionwouldcontinuetoimpairordeprivetheregionfromtheuseoflatencysensitiveapplications,the
financialimpactofwhichisdifficulttoevaluate.BothsolutionsareviabletomeetNunaviksnetwork
requirements.
Microwavetowertechnologyhastwoimportantlimitationswhencomparedtotheotherdesignsthatwere
studied.Firstly,lackofroadaccesstothetowersincreasestheyearlyoperatingcostlargelystemmingfromthe
requirementforhelicopteraccesstotowersites.Secondly,microwaveradioscapableoffunctioningin
NunaviksharshweatherconditionshavelesscapacitythannextgenerationKabandsatellitetechnologyand
quitesubstantiallylessthanopticalfibre.Forthisreason,weconsiderthatwhileamicrowavetowernetwork
technically
is
viable,
Nunaviks
network
requirements
are
too
high
to
pursue
this
option.
ConclusionThestudyconclusivelydemonstratesthatbuildingahighcapacitynetworkforNunavikisfeasibleandallows
formuchgreatercostefficiencythaniscurrentlybeingachievedwiththeexistingnetwork.
ThecommercialvalueoftheCbandsatellitecapacitycurrentlyinusebytheKRGtoprovideInternetservicein
Nunavik,includingcapacityobtainedthroughtheNationalSatelliteInitiativeandBroadbandCanada:
ConnectingRuralCanadians,combinedwiththeexpensesofoperatingthecurrenttransportnetwork,is
approximately$5.2millionperyear.
Whilethecapitalcostofanewnetworkissignificant,whencalculatedovertheanticipatedlifespanthe
averageyearlycostis50%to150%greaterthanthecurrentnetwork.However,thisnewnetworkwouldhave
uptothirtytimesmorecapacitythantheexistingnetworkandsolveNunaviksmajortelecommunications
challengeforatleastfifteentotwentyyears.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
9/44
Page9of44
2. Introduction
TheKativikRegionalGovernment(KRG)commissionedastudywithSalterGlobalConsulting(SGCINC)
to determine the feasibility of connecting the 14 communities in Nunavik with high speed
telecommunicationand
internet
services.
KRGrequiredthatthefollowingtechnologyoptionsbeexamined:
a) Undersea Fibre Optic Cable options, including the proposal that has been offered by Arctic
FibreInc.
b) TerrestrialFibreOpticalternatives.
c) TerrestrialHighCapacityMicrowavealternatives.
d) HighSpeed
Ka
Band
Satellite
options,
including
the
Telesat
Ka
Band
payload.
Foreachoption,KRGrequiredthatthefollowingissuesbeaddressed:
i. Technicalfeasibility,takingintoaccounttheclimateandgeographyofNunavik.
ii. Anticipatedinstallationtimeframes.
iii. Environmentalandregulatoryconsiderations.
iv. Longtermtechnicalperformance,includingtheprojectedsystemavailability.
v. Systemdiversityandredundancyoptionsintheeventofamajorsystemfailure.
vi. Estimatedlifespanofeachalternative.
vii. CostEstimates,includingbothcapitalandoperatingcosts.
viii. SystemInterconnection
Intheevaluationoftechnicalandnetworkalternatives,acriticalparameteristheforecastdemand
fromeachcommunity.KRGprovidedthefollowingforecast:
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
10/44
Page10of44
Estimatedrequirements:
Community Current
capacityMbs
(satellite)
Projected
Need2016
Mbs
Projectedneed
2021Mbs
Akulivik 10 100 300
Aupaluk 10 100 300
Inukjuak 25 250 750
Ivujivik 10 100 300
Kangirsuk 10 100 300
Kangiqsualujjuaq 10 100 300
Kangiqsujuaq 10 100 300
Kuujjuaq 65 650 1950
Kuujjuarapik 18 180 540
Puvirnituq 29 290 870
Quaqtaq 10 100 300
Salluit 19 190 570
Tasiujuaq 10 100 300
Umiujaq 10 100 300
Total 246 2460 7380
3.Methodology
Firstly, SGC INC evaluated the technical, cost and performance parameters of the fibre optic,
microwave radio and satellite alternatives to meet the needs of the KRG demand profile, on a
standalonebasis.
Next, SGC INC reviewed alterative network and technical configurations using a combination of
technologiestomeettheprojectedincreaseindemandovertime.
Finally,thesealternativeshavebeensummarizedintermsofcapitalcost,operatingcost,performance,
installationschedule,andpotentialrisk,andriskmitigationelements.
AlistofsubcontractorsengagedbySGCINCisshowninAttachment1,togetherwithalistofpotential
supplierswhowereconsultedaspartofthiscontract.
4. FibreOpticNetworkOptions
The network options proposed in this section are all based on a fibre "ring" architecture, with a
minimum of two entry/exit interconnection points. This permits traffic to flow in both directions
aroundthering.Intheeventofafibrebreak,allcommunitiesconnectedtotheringcanmaintainfull
traffic service by routing traffic in either direction to avoid the break. This ring type architecture is
typicallyusedinlonghaulmarineandterrestrialfibrenetworkarchitectures.
Thissectionisdividedintothreecomponents:
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
11/44
Page11of44
a) Anassessmentofanindicativestandalonefibrenetwork"ring"architecture.
b) AreviewandcomparisonwiththeproposalmadebyArcticFibreInc.
c) AreviewofterrestrialoptionsforNunavik.
a) Indicativefibreonlynetworkoption.
Figure1(below)showstheproposedindicativefibrenetworkoption.Inthismodel:
An interconnection point at Chisasibi is proposed with Eeyou Communications network,
providingaccesstosouthernCanada.
AsecondinterconnectionpointisproposedatSchefferville.Note:AfibrelinktoSchefferville,
connecting with southern Canada network is currently proposed, using the existing railway
rightofway.
ThefibrelinkbetweenKuujjuaqandScheffervilleisaterrestrialsystem
Remainingconnectionsarebasedonmarinefibrelinks,withexceptionofaterrestriallinkfrom
UngavaBaytoKuujjuaq,andanumberofshortterrestriallinksaspartofthefibreopticcable
landings at selected communities (as a result of depth, tide, or potential coastal scouring
issues).
Figure1 IndicativeFibreOpticNetworkOption
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
12/44
Page12of44
Adetaileddescriptionoftheproposednetworktogetherwithcosts,cableroutingconsiderationsand
nauticalchartsofproposedlandingsisshowninAppendix2.
KeySystemDetails:
Fibrelength
3,566
km
(2,907
km
marine,
659
km
terrestrial,
including
link
between
Kuujjuaq
andSchefferville)
Capacity 12fibremarinecable(6fibrepairs). Inthisreport,itisassumedthatonefibrepairis
equipped, initially with one 10 Gbits DWDM optical channel (DWDM Dense Wavelength
DivisionMultiplexing).ThisfullymeetstheKRG2021trafficrequirementswiththepotentialto
meetaveryhighexponentialtrafficgrowthinthefuture,ifrequired.
Note:Eachfibrepairhasaveryhighultimatecapacity(100Gbsperopticalchannel,andatotal
of88DenseWavelengthDivisionMultiplexing(DWDM)opticalchannels
Technicalinterfacesatlocalcommunities twotypesofinterfacehavebeenprovisionedinthe
report:
A1GbpsEthernetinterface(SpecificationIEEE802.3,1.25Gbps)
TheoptiontointerfaceatastandardTelcoDS1,DS3,(ITUspecificationG703),andOC3
andOC12(GR253CORE).Theseinterfacewouldmostlikelybeapplicabletoindustrial
and/orveryhighusagecustomers
Systemlifetime designlife,20yearsminimum.
DesignConsiderations:
IceScouring
Ice scouring represents a potentially significant risk to the integrity of the fibre optic cable,
particularly at cable landing sites and areas near the shore line. In general, the backbone
networkisnotatrisksoficescouring.
Thestudyevaluated literatureregarding icecharacteristicsonthewesternshoreofHudson's
BayandinUngavaBay.ReferencedocumentsareshowninAttachment2.
Insummary,
the
principal
risk
in
the
area
of
interest
is
fast
ice
(ice
that
is
landfast
or
anchored
tothe landmass).Themovementofthis ice isdeterminedbywinds,currentsandsalinity.A
principal risk occurs from ice rafting, where one slab of ice is driven on top of a second ice
sheet,withtheresultsofascouringactiononthebottom. Theestimatesreceivedonthelimit
ofthis icescouringareapproximately2metres (approximately6.56 feet)belowthenominal
seabedfloor. Inthereview,anominal3metres(approx9.85feet)depthhasbeenassumed.
Icebergsoccursinthevicinityof:
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
13/44
Page13of44
FoxeStraight
UngavaBay
InthevicinityofFoxeBay,themarinebackbonecableissufficientlydeepthaticebergsdonot
representathreat.
In
other
areas,
water
depth
of
the
mainline
fibre
cable
has
been
selected
to
be inexcessof100metres (Attachment3shows indicativedepthsof theproposedmainline
fibrecable).Forcabledepthsbetween200metresand100metres, lightarmouredcablehas
beenselected.Fordepthslessthan100metres,doublearmouredcablehasbeenused.
Cablelandingtechnologies
The landingsrepresentasignificantportionoftheoverallcostofthenetwork.Three landing
technologiesareproposed:
Underseaburialusingamarinecableplough.
"SplitPipe"construction thistechniqueusesaheavygradesplitsteeltosurroundthe
cablefromtheforeshoreuntilanappropriate,safedepthcanbereached.
Horizontal Directional Drilling this is the most expensive and typically requires
significantheavyequipmentonshoretoexecutethedrilling.
Thestudyhasassumedamixoftechniquesbasedonadesktopstudyand literaturereview.
Thistechnologymixhasbeenintegratedintothedesktopstudycostestimates
Tides
Tidesvary
considerably
around
the
coast
of
Nunavik,
with
the
largest
fluctuations
occurring
in
UngavaBay.Table1showstidedatafromtheCanadianHydrologicalService.
Table1TideFluctuations Nunavik
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
14/44
Page14of44
Installationtechniqueshavebeenselectedtoaccommodatethevaryingtideconditions.
Asanexample,itisproposedtouseaterrestriallinkfromUngavaBaytoKuujjuaq,inpart,asa
resultoftheextremetidalrangeintheregion.
Waterdepth
Ingeneralthedeeperthecableplacement,thesaferthesystemfromexternalthreatssuchas
shipping, fishing, ice scouring and icebergs. The depth of the mainline fibre link is shown in
Attachment3.Themajorityofthebackbonelinkisatawaterdepthofgreaterthan100m.
Light armoured cable is proposed for depths below 400 m. For depths between 400 m and
100m, single armour cable is proposed and for depths less than 100m, heavy duty, double
armourcableisproposed.
Cablechafing
Cablechafingcanbeaseriousissueformarinecables.Itisextremelyimportantthatthecable
be laid directly on the seabed floor and not in a manner where there is a possibility of the
cablebeingsuspendedbetweentwoseabedoutcrops. Inthiscase,thecontinuousmotionof
tidalactionandcurrentswillchafethecabletothepointoffailure,sometimes inarelatively
shortperiodoftime.
As a result, an underwater marine survey is a critical step in the determination of the final
cableplacement.
Systemavailability
Theavailabilityofmarinefibreopticsystemsisveryhigh;typicallyinthe99.999%rangewhen
a ring architecture is employed. The electronic and optoelectronic equipment in a modern
fibre system is usually configured in a "selfhealing ring" configuration, to increase overall
systemreliabilityandavailability.
Theprincipalvulnerabilitiestoacorrectlysurveyedand installedsystemaremanmade. Over
90% of marine cable system failures are the result of external sources (shipping, anchor
dragging,fishingetc).Figure2showsmajorshippingroutesinthearea.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
15/44
Page15of44
Figure2 MajorShippingRoutes(Reference:DepartofFisheriesandOceans)
Thechallengeforanarcticmarinesystemisthetimetorepairintheeventthatacablefailure
occurs in the winter season, and the cable is therefore inaccessible. This vulnerability
reinforcestheneedforafibreringarchitecture.
Installationscheduling
Thestudy initiallyconsidered thepossibilityof installationof themainline fibrecable ring in
phases,howeverthiswasconsideredtobeexcessivelycostlyandinefficient.
AmoderncableshipcanaccommodateallofthefibrecablefortheNunavikmarinemainline
link without the need to return to its base. When cable is layed directly on the sea floor, a
moderncableshipcanmaintainacable layingspeed,undergood"bluewater"conditions,of
between 4 and 7 km/hour. A typical rate of between 3 km/hour and 4 km/hour can be
achieved.Cablelayingspeedsaresignificantlylesswhenamarineploughisusedtoburycable,
andforinstallationsclosetoshorelines.
Evenifbadweather,delaysandotherissuesareconsidered,itisbothfeasibleandefficientto
lay the mainline link in one summer season. The additional mobilization and demobilization
costsincurredbyasplitinstallationseasonforthemainline(backbone)projectwouldbevery
high.
This,however,doesnotmeanthatthelandingswouldhavetobeinstalledatthesametime.It
isrecommendedthattheinitialsystemconfigurationbedesignedsothatalloftheanticipated
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
16/44
Page16of44
underwaterbranchingunitsareidentifiedandprovisionedduringthemainlineinstallation. It
ispossibletoreturnata laterdate,whendemand issufficient,toconnect localcommunities
throughacablelandinginstallationtothepreinstalledbranchingunit.Itisconsiderablymore
expensivetoretroactivelyinstallanunderwaterbranchingunit.
EnvironmentalAssessmentandPermitting
Figure3belowshowstheextentoftheNunavikMarineRegionthatisadministeredbyvarious
regulatoryagencies.ThemapalsoidentifiesCategory1,2and3LandAreasasdefinedbythe
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement
(
2
0
0
7
)
.
Figure3 ExtentofNunavikMarineRegionwithrespecttoEnvironmentalAssessment
The proposed fibre optic system is entirely within the boundaries of the Nunavik Marine
Region.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
17/44
Page17of44
In general, environmental assessment is a process to predict environmental effects of
proposedinitiativesbeforetheyarecarriedout.
Anenvironmentalassessment:
identifiespotentialadverseenvironmentaleffects
proposesmeasurestomitigateadverseenvironmentaleffects
predicts whether there will be significant adverse environmental effects, after
mitigationmeasuresareimplemented
includesafollowupprogramtoverifytheaccuracyoftheenvironmentalassessment
andtheeffectivenessofthemitigationmeasures.
There are five major review agencies that impact the proposed Nunavik fibre optic network
froman
environmental
review
perspective
i. KativikEnvironmentalQualityCommission(KEQC)
ii. NunavikMarineregionalImpactReviewBoard(NMIRIB)
iii. FederalEnvironmentalandSocialImpactReviewBoard(COFEXNord)
iv. CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency(CEAA)
v. DepartmentofFisheriesandOceans(DFO) Navigation,protectionoffisherieshabitat
(includingfreshwaterhabitats),andtheSpeciesatRiskAct(SARA).
Attachment4outlinesthe responsibilitiesoftherespectiveagencies,andtheprocesses that
willlikelybeneededtosecurethepermitsfortheproject.
In summary, the process is initiated by a Project Description Report (PDR) which outlines
"potential adverse effects" and proposes mitigation techniques to minimize these adverse
effects.EnvironmentalReviewagenciesreviewbothnaturalandsocialeffects,andthetestfor
inclusion inthe initialstagesoftheapplicationsarerelatively lowtogiveeachcommunityor
potentiallyaffectedpartytheopportunitytoparticipateandshareviews. Theoutcomeofthis
stage of the process is typically some form of Preliminary Environmental Assessment, which
givesthe
proponent
an
indication
of
the
likely
terms
and
conditions
that
will
need
to
be
met
priortoformalapplicationsforpermitting.Thenextstageoftheenvironmentalreviewprocess
usesahigherlevelofthresholdthatistypicallydefinedas"significantadverseeffects."Public
consultationsandengagementareanimportantelementateachstepoftheprocess.
Onceallofthereviewprocessesarecomplete,theproponentisrequiredtoformallyapplyfor
therequiredpermitstoimplementtheproject.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
18/44
Page18of44
Using similar infrastructure projects as a guide, it is estimated that the length of the entire
processfromideatopermitscouldbeintherangeof2years.
CapitalandOngoingestimatedcosts:
CapitalCost
=$153.9M
(assuming
a20%
contingency
allowance).
Ongoingcosts=$2.3Mperyear(excludinginterconnectconnectioncosts).
b). ArcticFibreInc.Proposal
ArcticFibrehasproposedaCanadianmainlinemarinenetworkasshowninFigure4.
Figure4 ArcticFibreIncMainlineMarineCanadianNetwork
ArcticFibreINChasprovidedcostestimatesforservingall14communitiesinNunavikplusDeception
Bay.Figure
5shows
the
Arctic
Fibre
design
to
serve
the
communities
in
Nunavik
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
19/44
Page19of44
Figure5 ArcticFibreNetwork
Insummary,theArcticFibreproposalisdividedintotwosections:
i. A marine backbone section comprising a distance of approximately 1,400 km. This
networkconnectswiththeproposedArcticFibretransCanadianArcticFibrenetwork,and
provides an alternative spur route to Chisasibi broadly following the western shore of
Nunavik(connectingattheEasternHudson'sBayUnderseaBranchingUnit).
Thecapitalcostestimate for thebackbonenetwork isbetween$55Mand$65M (witha
5%contingencyallowance).
ii. A localnetwork connecting individualcommunitiestothebackbonenetwork.Thetotal
distance for these individual connections is approximately 1,400 km. The capital cost
Kuu ua
Tasiu a
Au aluk
Kan irsuk
Qua ta
Ivu ivik
Puvirnitu
Akulivik
Inuk uak
Umiu a
Kuu uara ik
BrisaRadisson
Kan i su ua
Salluit
Existin Fibre Links
Chisasibi
Existing
FibreEastHudson
ProposedArctic
Dece tion Ba
Kan i sualu ua
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
20/44
Page20of44
estimateforthe"localconnectinglinksandlandings"networkisbetween$80Mand$90M
(witha5%contingencyallowance).
iii. MicrowaveradiolinksfromKuujjuaqtoKangiqsualujjuaq,TasiujaqandAupaluk.
iv. AterrestrialfibrelinkfromUngavaBaytoKuujjuaq.
v. Arctic Fibre has indicated that the installation schedule for the Canadian portion of the
route is contingent on Government of Canada approval, marine surveys and carrier
support.
In terms of availability, the network proposed by Arctic Fibre can be configured in a ring
configuration. Thismeansthattheexpectedavailabilitycouldbeinthe99.999%region.
c). TerrestrialFibreOptions
The KRG Statement of Work required the study to review the technologies employed in the
NorthernOntarioPickleLakefibreopticinstallationforsuitabilitytoNunavik.
Attachment 5 provides a summary of the Northern Ontario Broadband Fibre Optic Network
located in the Nishnawbe Aki Nation (NAN) territory. Figure 6 shows the extent of the NAN
network
Figure6 NANFibreOpticNetwork,NorthernOntario
TheNANnetworkextendsforapproximately2,645km,connecting26communitiesand
coveringanareaofapproximately2,600sqkm.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
21/44
Page21of44
Eachcommunitywillhaveaccesstoa2.5Gbstransportlinkand8x1GbsEthernetlinks.
Thetotalnetworkcomprises:
1,185kmaerialconstruction
140kmburiedcable
1,320kmsubmarineinstallation.
Forapproximately90%oftheNANrouting,eitherallweatherorwinterroadsexist.Thismeans
thatheavyequipmentcanbedeployedalongtheroadstofacilitateinstallation.
For the Nunavik terrestrial installations, the study found that a number of construction
techniques employed in Northern Ontario would not necessarily be applicable in Nunavik,
primarilyasaresultofthelackofroadinfrastructure.
5. MicrowaveRadioOptions
The KRGStatementofWork required thestudy to reviewmicrowave technologyoptions to provide
highspeedservicetoNunavikcommunities.
Thestudyconsideredtwomicrowaveradiodesignalternativesbased, initially,ontheprojected2016
trafficrequirementsprovidedbyKRG.
i. Adesignusingacombinationof:
An
11
GHz
system
operating
at
1200
Mbps
A5GHzsystemwithacapacityof200Mbps
A900MHzadministrationandtelemetrysystem
Theantennasforeachsystemwouldsharecommontowerstructureswithanaveragedistance
between towers of approximately 40 km. Hybrid power systems (solar, wind, battery and
dieselgeneratorbackup)areproposedatintermediatesites.
ii. Adesignusinga6Ghzmicrowaveradiosystem.Thissystempermitsa longer"skip"distance
betweenradiotowers,andhasthepotentialtoeliminatetheneedformultipleradiosystems
tomeetsystemavailabilityrequirements.
Thestudyfocussedonanindicativenetworkdesignusingthe6GHzradiooptions.
Threemicrowaveradiooptionsforthe interconnectionofahighspeedNunaviknetworktosouthern
Canadawereconsidered:
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
22/44
Page22of44
i. ConnectionfromKuujjuaqtothenorthernextentoftheHydroQuebecfibreopticnetworkat
Brisay, Quebec. After further evaluation, the study concluded that it is unlikely that Hydro
Quebecwouldallowconnectionwiththeirexistingfibrenetwork.
ii. A
microwave
radio
link
from
Kuujjuaq
to
Schefferville.
This
has
the
potential
to
link
with
a
proposedextensionofafibrelinkthatcurrentlyextendsfromSeptIslestoLabradorCity.The
proposedrightofwayfortheextensiontoScheffervillecouldfollowtheexistingrailwayright
ofway.
iii. ConnectiontotheexistingEeyouCommunicationssystemnetworkatChisasibi.
a) Indicative Microwave Radio Design to serve all 14 communities in Nunavik, in a ring
configuration
Appendix4shows
the
network
design,
civil
works,
equipment
and
powering
costs
for
amicrowave
"ring"networktopologyservingallofthecommunitiesinNunavik,andhavingsouthernCanadian
interconnectionpointsatChisasibiandSchefferville.
Thedesign isbasedona totalcapacityof1.3Gbs.This figurecanbedoubled insize to2.6Gbs
usingthesamecivilworksinvestment.Costestimatesareprovidedforbothoptions.
A key parameter for microwave radio design is radio path planning. This determines the overall
performanceofthemicrowavesystem,andprovidesthelocation,andheights,oftheradiotowers.
Figure7showstheindicativeradiotowerdesign.Thereareatotalof50microwaveradiotowers
withheights
that
vary
between
amaximum
of
90
metres
to
aminimum
of
5metres.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
23/44
Page23of44
Figure7 IndicativeMicrowaveRadioDesign
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
24/44
Page24of44
Theproposedpowersystemformicrowaveradioequipmentisbasedonahybriddesigncomposedof
thefollowingcomponents:
14x240wsolarpanels
2x1kwwindturbines
1x5kw
arctic
diesel
generator
Theradiolinkshavebeendesigntoanetworkcarrier99.99%availability.
Insummary:
CapitalCost=$52Mto$57Mfora1.3Gbscapacitynetwork.
Recurring costs estimated at 4% of capital cost = between $2.0M and $2.5M, plus annual
licencefeesofapproximately$0.5Mperyear.
Fora2.6Gbscapacitysystem,itisestimatedthatthe:
o CapitalCost between$65Mand$70M
o Recurringcost=$3.5and$4.0M
6. SatelliteOptions
AllKRGcommunicationsneeds inNunavikarecurrentlyservedsolelybyCBandsatellite technology
forinternetandgovernmentadministration.Sinceitsinitialdeploymentin2002on11MHzofsatellite
bandwidth,theKRGSatellitenetworkhasgrowntotoday's129MHz.
Thecurrent
internet
distribution
service
is
based
on
astar
topology,
where
each
community
is
linked
toasouthernInternetGatewayatSiouxLookout.Thecorporateinternetnetworktopologyisbasedon
amesharchitecture,wheresinglehopremotetoremotecommunicationissupported.
At the projected rate of traffic growth, current infrastructure using Telesat's Anik F3 CBand space
segmentisnottechnicallyscalabletomeetdemand.InadditionincrementalcostsofincreasedCBand
capacity, estimated at $25 million per year for a full Cband payload, would be very challenging to
support financially. The KRG network is experiencing exponential growth significantly exceeding the
capabilityofthecurrentCBandnetwork.
For future expansion of the KRG satellite network, the study proposes a network configuration
consistingof:
Ka Band technology to meet the majority of the increased demand, noting that KaBand
systems do not support a mesh network topology. KaBand technology also offers a very
significant cost advantage over CBand, sometimes as high as an order of magnitude less
expensive. KaBand technology would permit KRG to meet its forecast bandwidth
requirements.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
25/44
Page25of44
Retaining a modest CBand capability using existing network equipment to support current
customerMESHbased. Itisestimatedthat16+5MHzcapacitywillberequiredtomeetthis
requirement.
Tables
2
and
3
provide
an
estimate
of
capital
cost
expenses
to
support
a
Ka
Band
ground
stationcapacityinNunaviktomeetKRG'strafficrequirements,basedprimarilyoninformation
providedbyTelesat.
Summary Est. Price
RF equipment $1.7 M
Baseband Equipment $4.0 M
Construction $0.5 M
Installation $0.23 M
Professional Services $0.26 M
Logistics $0.15M
Total $6,8 M
Per si te $0.43 M
Table2 EstimateofCapitalExpensesrequiredtodeployproposedKa
bandnetworkinfrastructureinexistingKRGRemoteEarthStations
Summary Est. Price
Electronics $3,7MProfessional Services $0.12M
Total $3,8M
Table3 EstimateofCapitalExpensesrequiredtodeploytheproposed
Kabandnetworkinfrastructureinthegatewayearthstation
TheKaBandnetworktopology is limitedtoastarconfiguration.Usinganestimateof2Mbs
percommunityforthemeshnetworkdemand,thistranslates intoatotalrequirementof28
Mbs.
Using
the
current
technical
configuration
of
the
C
Band
network,
this
represents
approximately16MHzor50%ofatransponder.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
26/44
Page26of44
EstimatedCostforCbandNetwork
Assuming that all internet traffic is transferred to the proposed KaBand network, it is
estimatedthatanadditional5MHzofCBandcapabilitywillberequiredintheoutyearsofthe
study
to
maintain
a
minimum
MESH
network
capacity.
The
estimated
cost
to
KRG
of
this
C
Bandspacesegmentisbetween$200Kand$250Kperyear,onceexistingcontractagreements
expire.
7. SummaryofOperatingExpenseEstimate
ThefollowingtablesprovidesanestimateoftheoperatingexpensesforacombinedKaBand
andCBandnetwork,assumingaSTARconfigurationfora7.2GbsKaBandnetwork,anda20
MbpsMESHCBandnetwork.
Years(2016 to2030)
Ka-BandSpace Segment
C-BandSpace Segment
InternetConnection
Ka-BandUplink
C-BandUplink
NetworkOperation
Totals $70M to $90 M $1.8M to $2.5M $6.3 M $9 M $1 M $24 M
Table4 Estimatedcostsofanindicativesatellitenetworkusing
CbandandKaBandtechnologyfor15yearperiodfrom2016to2030
8. EnvironmentalAssessment
Considerations
Itisanticipatedthattheenvironmentalassessmentcostsandtimeframeswillvarybetween
thedifferenttechnologyoptions.
a) FortheFibreOpticalternatives,thefollowingassumptionshavebeenmade:
FortheportionofthenetworkthatfallsundertheNunavikregulations(NunavikLandClaimAgreements,JamesBayAgreement,KativikEnvironmentalQuality
Commission,MunicipalitiesasdefinedundertheKativikActetc),thattheproject
wouldbelikelyconsideredinthe"greyarea",asdefinedbyregulations.Thiscould
meanthat
the
project
would
likely
not
be
considered
in
the
same
way
that,
for
example,aminewouldbeconsidered,butthattheprojectwouldneedtoidentify
potentialareasofrisk(includingpotentialadverseaffects)andpossiblemitigation
options.Publicconsultationswouldbeacriticalpartoftheprocess.
FortheportionoftheprojectthatfallsundertheNunavikMarineArea,itisanticipatedthatresponsibilitywouldbesharedamongst:
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
27/44
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
28/44
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
29/44
Page29of44
Figure8 combinedfibre,withradiolinktoSchefferville
Kangiqsualujjuaq
Aupaluk
Kangirsuk
Salluit
Puvirnituq
Akulivik
Inukjuak
Umiujaq
Kuujjuarapik
BrisayRadisson
Kangiqsujuaq
Chisasibi
NewDigitalMicrowaveLink
ExistingFibreLinks
ProposedFibreLinkExistingFibreLinks
DeceptionBay
Ivujivik
Quaqtaq
Tasiujaq
Kuujjuaq
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
30/44
Page30of44
Afibrering,withmicrowaveradioservingsmallercommunities,asshowninFigure9.
Thisoptionprovidesforanextensionofthemicrowaveradiosystemtosmallercommunitiesthat
can
be
more
economically
served
by
radio.
Themixedfibre/radionetworkfullymeetstheKRG2021forecastdemandrequirement.
Figure9 Afibreringwithradioprovidingservicetosmallercommunities
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
31/44
Page31of44
Afibreringwithsatelliteprovingservicetosmallercommunities,asshowninFigure10.
This option provides a combination of satellite (both CBand andKaBand) together with a fibre
backbonenetwork.
Thenetwork
fully
meets
the
KRG
2021
capacity
requirements.
Figure10 Combinedfibreandsatellitenetworkoption
Kuujjuaq
KangiqsualujjuaqTasiujaq
Aupaluk
Kangirsuk
Quaqtaq
SalluitIvujivik
Puvirnituq
Akulivik
Inukjuak
Umiujaq
Kuujjuarapik
Brisay Caniapiscau
Radiss
on
Kangiqsujuaq
Chisasi
bi ExistingFibreLinks
ProposedFibreLink ExistingFibreLinks
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
32/44
Page32of44
Table5showsacapitalcostcomparisonoffibrenetworkoptions:
In this analysis, the baseline cost estimate of the indicative fibre optic network, which assumed all
landingswouldbeimplementedusingsplitpipetechnology,hasbeenincreasesby$15M(forOption1)
toprovide
an
allowance
for
Horizontal
Directional
Drilling
in
those
circumstances
where
it
is
necessary
toprotectthelandingcableandmeettheoverallsystemavailabilityrequirements.
SystemConfiguration CapitalCostof
FibreOptic
System($M)
FibreOptic
CableDistance(km)
Other
SystemCosts($M)
Comments
Option1AllFibre
IndicativeNetwork $154M 3,566 Landingoption buriedplus
splitpipeconstruction. Marine2907km
Terrestrial
659
km
Option2ArcticFibre
ProposalSecondaryNetworkPrimaryNetwork
$80M $90M1
$55M $65M1
1,4001,400
Excludeslandlinkto
Scheffervillediversityprovided
byArcticFibremainnetwork.1
Calculatedusing5%contingency
Option3IndicativeFibre
Networkservingall
communitieswithRadio
linkingKuujjuaqto
Schefferville
$125M 3,050 $10M1.2Gbit/s
capacity
microwave
radiosystem
fromKuujjuaq
toSchefferville.
Landingoption buriedplussplitpipeconstruction.
Marine2907km Terrestrial143km
* Assumesadditional$12.8M
forHDD
Option4Combinedfibre
andmicrowaveradio.
$98M 2,546 $31.2M(Microwave
radio) Landingoption buriedplus
splitpipeconstruction. Marine2415km Terrestrial131km
* Assumesadditional$10.7M
forHDD
Option5Combinedfibre
andsatellite
$98M 2,584 $27.1M(Satellite)
Assumessatelliteserving5communitiesplusringbackup
fromKuujjuaq.
Table5 CapitalCostComparisonforfibreopticnetworkalternatives
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
33/44
Page33of44
Table6showsrecurringcostestimatesforfibreopticnetworkalternatives:
Inthisanalysis:
LicensingcostforMicrowaveRadioandSatelliteoptionshavebeenincluded.
Maintenancecosts
have
been
included
on
the
following
basis:
o FibreOpticsystems 1.5%ofcapitalcostsannually
o Satellitesystems 1.7%ofcapitalcostsannually
o MicrowaveRadiosystems 4%ofcapitalcostsannually
Thesecostsincludemaintenanceandrepair,systemoperation,technology(hardwareand
software)upgrades
SystemConfiguration
TotalEstimated
SystemCapital
Costs
EstimatedAnnual
OperatingCosts
(excludingsystem
expansioncosts)($M)
TotalCost
in
$2013,
excludinginflationover20years
(15forsatellite)($M)
Option1AllFibre
IndicativeNetwork$154M $2.3M $277M
Option2 ArcticFibre
Proposal
$143M ArcticFibreusesa"Utility"
businessmodel,andongoing
costsaredependentonthe
number
of
users
on
the
system
ArcticFibreusesa"Utility"
businessmodel,and
ongoingcostsare
dependent
on
the
number
ofusersonthesystem
Option3Indicative
FibreNetworkserving
allcommunitieswith
RadiolinkingKuujjuaq
toSchefferville
$135M $2.4M $259.4
Option4Combined
fibre,microwave
radio.
$129M $3.1M $268.4
Option5
Combined
fibreandsatellite $125M $1.9M $184.4
Table6 FibreNetworkOptions,RecurringCosts
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
34/44
Page34of44
10.InterconnectionOptions
For
the
microwave
radio
and
fibre
optic
network
alternatives,
two
network
interconnections
are
required to the southern Canada mainline telecommunications network, to complete the
recommended"ring"configurationsinordertomeetnetworkavailabilityrequirements.
Fouralternativeshavebeenconsidered:
a) ConnectiontotheHydroQuebecnetworkatBrisay thisalternativehasbeenproposedby i
CommasacomponentoftheirmicrowaveradioproposalfromKuujjuaqtoBrisay.
Afterfurtherconsideration,thestudyconcludedthatisextremelyunlikelythatHydroQuebec
would
permit
public,
carrier
type,
telecommunications
traffic
that
may
be
subject
to
regulation,over its internalcommunicationsnetwork.Thisnetworkalternativewastherefore
notconsideredfurther.
b) Connectionwithaproposedfibre linkatSchefferville thisalternative isbased, inpart,ona
proposedextensionofthefibrelinkfromLabradorCitytoSchefferville,usingtherightofway
of the Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc (Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. has acquired the
northern section of the rail line of the QNS&L Railway, including the Menihek Subdivision,
whichrunsbetweenEmerilJunction,NewfoundlandandLabradorandSchefferville,Quebec).
Figure11showsrouteoftherightofway.
Figure11 MapofRailwayrightofwayfromSeptIsletoSchefferville
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
35/44
Page35of44
The connection with a high speed fibre link at Schefferville, perhaps with a partnership
arrangementwiththecurrentfibreopticprojectproponents,wouldprovidehighspeedaccess
tosouthernCanadanetworksthatwouldmeetthenetworkcapacityrequirementsofKRG.
c) Connection
with
the
Eeyou
Communications
Network
(ECN)
at
Chisasibi.
Figure
12
shows
the
currentECNfibrenetwork.
Figure12 EeyouCommunicationsNetwork
EeyouCommunicationshaveexpressedaninterestinworkingwithKRGprovidingahighspeed
fibre optic transport facility to southern Canada. Traffic from the proposed KRG high speed
networkwould
terminate
in
Chisasibi,
and
be
transported
by
ECN
to
St.
Felicien,
for
onward
connectiontosoutherntelecommunicationnetworks.
Thereisapotentiallongtermissueofcapacity.Thecurrentcapacityofthenetworkis2.4Gbs.
ECNhasaplantoexpandtheJamesBaynetwork,whichwouldsignificantlyincreasecapacity.
FromtheperspectiveofKRG,therearethreeoptionsforconnectionwiththeECN.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
36/44
Page36of44
i. IncludeacapitalcostallowanceintheKRGnetworkestimateforexpansionoftheECN
network, to meet the term KRG traffic requirements. This could be implemented in
termsof:
1) An
Indefeasible
Right
of
Use
(IRU)
agreement,
where
KRG
would
have
unrestricted access to a defined number of fibre pairs or Dense Wavelength
DivisionMultiplexeropticalchannelsforaspecifiedperiod(e.g.20years). In
this arrangement,ECN could be contracted to maintain andoperate the IRU
channelsforanagreedfee.
2) ApartnershiparrangementwithECNthatcouldincludetherightofECNtouse
a potential southern interconnection gateway at Schefferville using the
proposedKRGnetwork,toprovideroutediversityfortheECNnetwork.
ii. Alongtermbulkpurchaseagreementthatwouldbesimilartoagreementsinsouthern
Canada
with
respect
to
interconnection
at
defined
Points
of
Presence
(PoP).
In
southern Canada, PoP agreements are often regulated by the Canadian Radio and
TelevisionCommission(CRTC),butasimilarlegalframeworkcouldbeadoptedforthe
connectiontotheECNnetwork.
iii. ApartnershipwithECNforanextensionoftheECNnetworkintoNunavik.
d) ArcticFibre in this networkoption,ArcticFibrewould inherentlyprovidenetworkdiversity
throughinterconnectionsinsouthernCanadathroughanextensionoftheArcticFibrenetwork
throughChisasibitoMontreal,andutilizing linksthroughother interconnectionpoints inthe
ArcticFibrenetwork.
Foreachofthesenetworkalternatives,therearetwocoststobeconsidered:
1) ThecostoftransportfromthesouthernterminioftheproposedKRGnetworktoa
southernCanadaPointofPresence(PoP).
2) ThecostofinterconnectionatthesouthernCanadianPoPtoTier1carriers.
Forsatellitenetworkalternatives,thecostestimatesincludebackhaultoasouthernCanadianPoP,
buttheincrementalcostsofinterconnectionatthePoPneedtoconsidered.
InterconnectionCost
Assumptions
a. ForabulktransportationcostfromChisasibitoStFelicien,andsimilarlyfromScheffervilleto
SeptIsles,$50,000permonthperGbshasbeenassumed.
b. ForinterconnectioncostsatsouthernCanadianPoPlocations(StFelicienandSeptIsles),an
averageof$15permonthperMbshasbeenassumed
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
37/44
Page37of44
11.OverallComparisonofSatellite,FibreOpticsandMicrowaveRadio
Technologies
Ingeneral,comparisonoftechnicalalternativesfortelecommunicationsbackbonesystemsneedstobe
based on specific applications. There is no one size that fits all and, in most cases, a combination of
technologiesmayrepresentthemostcosteffectivemethodologytomatchincreasingdemandswiththe
fastchangingcostdynamicsofindividualtechnologyoptions.
However, each technology does have specific advantages and disadvantages that are based on the
underlying science associated with each option. A global overview of technologies is provided in the
WorldBank'sBroadbandStrategiesHandbook{PublishedbytheWorldBank(InfoDev)March2nd,2012
http://www.infodev.org/articles/broadbandstrategieshandbook}. The following sections provide a
summary
of
each
technology,
and
a
generic
comparison
of
cost
versus
capacity
of
the
three
options
consideredinthisstudy.
a) FibreOptics.
FibreOpticsystemsare fundamentallycharacterisedbyhigh initialcost,extremelyhigh capacity,high
performanceandflexibilityofapplications.
i. Currentopticalfibres(typicallyconfiguredinpairs,oneforthe"go"direction,andtheother
fibreforthe"return"direction)havethecapacitytocarryupto100Gbsperopticalchannel,
andamaximumofindependent88opticalchannelsperfibrepair.
ii. The
performance
of
operating
fibre
optic
systems
worldwide
has
been
proven
to
be
very
high.Fibresystemshavelowlatencyandpropagationdelays(signalstravelatapproximately
90% of the speed of light as an example, a 5,000 km system has a propagation delay of
about20ms).
iii. Opticalfibresareessentiallyimmunetointerferencefromradiofrequency(RF),weatherand
spacebasedinterference.
iv. Lifetime Opticalfibrehasarelativelylongoperationallife(upto30years).
Thetwoprincipaldisadvantagesare:
v. Cost fibre systems are characterized by a high initial capital cost compared to other
technologiesformostcurrentlevelsofdemandinNorthernCanada.
vi. Vulnerabilitytoafibrecablebreak,particularlyinspring.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
38/44
Page38of44
Inthereport,ithasbeenassumedthatthefibrecablewillbeburiedinshallowareasand
areasclosetotheshore.Ithasalsobeenassumedthat,insomecases,horizontaldrilling
willbeemployedtoincreasethe"robustness"ofcablelandings.
Thereport
includes
estimates
for
repairing
cable
breaks,
based
on
available
data
of
fibre
cablereliability.
Worldwide,over90%offibresystemfailuresaremanmade,andalmostallfailuresoccurnear landing.
Foramarinesystem,thistypicallymeansanchordraggingorfishingasapossiblecause.
To mitigate a cable break, fibre networks are almost always configured in a "ring" configuration, as
proposed inthisstudy. Intheeventofabeak,signalscanbererouted intheoppositedirectioneither
sideofthebreak.
b) Satellite
Satellites have a long history of providing communication in Northern Canada. Although the cost is
relativelyhighintermsofcapitalinvestmentforthesatelliteowner/operator,therecentintroductionof
KaBandtechnologyhassignificantlyreducedpricelevelscomparedtoexistingCBandtechnology.
A principal advantage for satellite communications is cost for remote communities, and where the
demand over a relatively large geographic area is modest. Satellite operators essentially provide
financingandtechnologysupportforthespacesegmentportionofthesatellitelink.
Inaddition,theconstructionphaseofthissolutionwouldberelativelysimpleandrapidcomparedtothe
other solutions. Ground infrastructure is located in towns/communities with easy to access.
Environmental
Assessment
is
typically
minimal,
and
this
option
features
reuse
of
some
existing
infrastructure.
i. Satellitesare typically located in ageostationaryorbit,approximately 36,000km fromearth.
Thisimposesapropagationandlatencytimedelaythatissignificantforsomeapplications.For
thisstudy,acombinationofameshnetworkarchitecture (using CBand technology)andKa
Band,usingastartnetworktopology,hasbeenrecommended.
ii. Performanceofsatellitesystemsistypicallygood,offeringanavailabilityof99.99%
iii. Thehighreliabilityofsatellitesystemsiswelldocumented,butoutagescanoccurduetospace
basedweather
phenomena
and
other
failure
mechanisms.
iv. The capacity of KaBand satellite systems is much superior to existing CBand systems. The
ultimatecapacityofsatellitesystems isdependentonthenumberofsatellites launched,and
forNorthernCanada,theeconomicsofprovidingservicetorelativelysparselypopulatedareas.
v. Satellitestypicallyhaveadesignlifeof15years.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
39/44
Page39of44
vi. Communitiesservedbysatelliteswill likelyhavediversityofsatellitecommunication links, in
thesensethatKaBandandCBandservicesareondifferentsatellites.
vii. Satellites operating in the KaBand have a greater susceptibility to rain fade than those
operating
in
the
C
Band.
This
phenomenon
can
be
mitigated
by
use
of
adaptive
coding
and
modulation(ACM)schemes,incorporatingforwarderrorcorrection.Inaddition,UplinkPower
Control(UPC)isatechniqueusedtomitigaterainfade.UnlikeACM,UPCdoesnotreducethe
capacityofthenetwork.
c) MicrowaveRadio
In terms of both capacity and cost, microwave radio systems typically between fibre and satellite
systemsintermsofbothinitialcapitalcostandexpansionoptions.
For low capacity applications, the cost of constructing a microwave radio route and the associated
towers and other civil works structures are often prohibitive. However, as demand increases, the
economics of microwave radio systems is characterized by an initial higher capital cost than satellite
systems,butasignificantlylowercapitalcostcomparedtofibresystems.
Akeyparameterrelativetotheperformanceamicrowavesystemistheinitialradioroutedesign. This
designdeterminestheheightoftowerstoachievereliablecommunicationsinallweatherconditionsand
alsoaffectsthelongtermoperatingcostsintermsofpoweringoptionsforremotesites.
i. Forcarriergrademicrowaveradiosystems,thedistancebetweenradiotowerscanbeupto
80km,althoughthisisdependentontheterrain.
ii. Microwavesystemsaretypicallydesigntoanavaibilityof99.99%,butoftenperformatthe
higherlevelof99.999%undermostweatherconditions.
iii. Modernradiosystemsconsumesignificantlylesspowerearlierversions,andcanbesupplied
byhybrid integratedsolar,wind,dieselpowerunits.Thisreducesthenumberoftimesthat
fuelneedstobeprovidedatindividualsites.
iv. Ingeneral,microwaveradiosystemsaremoreexpensivetomaintain. Fuelisrequiredtobe
deliveredtoremotesites.Thisusuallyinvolveshelicopterlifts.
v. Microwave
systems
typically
have
a
design
life
of
20
years,
although
replacement
of
the
batterypackisrecommendedatleastevery10years.
vi. Microwaveradiosystemtowersaresubjecttoiceandsnowloading.
Inthereport, iceandsnow loadinghasbeenconsidered inthedesigncharacteristicsof
themicrowaveradiotowers.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
40/44
Page40of44
d) GenericCostvs.CapacityComparisons
Acriticalparameter inthechoiceofwhich technology ismostappropriate foraspecificapplication is
current,
and
forecast
demand.
The
figure
below
provide
an
illustrative
comparison
of
alternative
technicaloptions
Figure13 IllustrativeComparisonofTelecommunicationsBackboneNetworkAlternatives(notto
scale)
Forlowdemandoveralargegeographicarea,traditionalsatellitesystemsalwaysofferthemostcost
effectivesolution.However,asdemandincreasesbothradioandfibrebecomemorecosteffective.In
ourmodel,
Ka
band
satellite
capacity
would
be
dedicated
to
the
region
at
asubstantial
capital
cost
and
thereforediffersfromthetraditionalCbandsatellitemodel,beingmostcosteffectiveinthemoderate
capacityrangebetweenmicrowaveandfibre.
Forlongtermhighercapacitylinks,mostoperatorsworldwideareadoptingfibreopticsasthebackbone
communicationtechnologyofchoice.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
41/44
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
42/44
Page42of44
SystemConfiguration CapitalCost
($M)
OngoingAverage
Annual
OperatingCost($M)
TotalCost
in$2013($M)
AllFibreOption
toall14communities
plusDeceptionBay
$154M 2.3+3.9average
transportand
interconnection
costs
$280M
(20years)
ArcticFibre
(assumingall14
communitiesareserved
plusDeceptionBay)
$143M ArcticFibreusesa
"Utility"business
model,andongoing
costsaredependent
onthe
number
of
usersonthesystem
ArcticFibreusesa
"Utility"business
model,andongoing
costsaredependent
onthe
number
of
usersonthesystem
Fibreplusradiolink
KuujjuaqtoSchefferville
$135M 2.4+3.9average
transportand
interconnection
costs
$260M
(20years)
Fibreplusradioto6
communitiesplus
Kuujjuaq
$129M 3.1+3.9average
transportand
interconnection
costs
$270M
(20years)
Fibreplussatelliteto5
communitiesplus
Kuujjuaq
$127M 1.9+3.9average
transportand
interconnection
costs
$243M
(15yearsforsatellite
and20yearsfor
fibre)
Satellite(CombinationofCband
andKaBand)servingall
14communities
$94M 1.6+0.4 total
internetgateway
cost
$125M
(15years)
Table7 NetworkAlternativesthatmeetKRG2021CapacityRequirements
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
43/44
Page43of44
Table 8 shows a comparison of network options considered in the study that meet the KRG 2016
networkcapacityrequirements.
System
Configuration
Capital
Cost
($M)
OngoingAnnual
OperatingCost($M)
TotalCost
in$2013($M)
ForComparisonAllFibreOption
toall14communities
plusDeceptionBay
154 2.3+1.1
average
interconnect
220(20years)
AllMicrowaveRadio
Option Toall14communities
67 3.7+1.1average
interconnect
163(20years)
Satellite(CombinationofCband
andKaBand)servingall
14communities
31 1.4+1.1average
interconnect
68(15years)
Table8 NetworkAlternativethatmeetKRG2016CapacityRequirements.
8/13/2019 SGC Nunavik Final Report v15 Public
44/44
13.ProjectedProjectImplementationtimes.
TheoverallgeneralisedtimescaleforapotentialexpansionoftheNunaviknetworkisshownbelow.
14.Conclusions
Theprincipalconclusionsoftheprefeasibilitystudyare:
a) SatelliteandfibreopticstechnicalsolutionscanmeettheKRG2021trafficrequirements.
b) KaBandsatellitetechnologyhassignificantcostandcapacityadvantagescomparedto
existingKRGCBandsatellitetechnology.
c) FibreopticssolutionsforNunavikaretechnicallyfeasible,andofferthebestoverall
performancespecificationsandlongtermtrafficgrowthcapacity.
d) Fromacostperspective,thelongterm20yearoutlookisdependentonforecastoftraffic
demand.
i. Forlargecapacitysystems,fibreopticsiscurrentlythenetworktechnologyof
choiceformostglobalnetworkoperators.
ii. However,modernKaBandsatellitetechnologiesoffercostadvantagesforlower
demanduserprofilesandservicetosomeisolatedcommunities.
Securing
funds
1year
minimum
EA
02years
minimum
Construction
2years
minimum
Total
35years
minimum