Muni Fiber

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Tue Mar 27 11:54:57 CDT 2012


In a message written on Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:47:10PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I would like to see part of any road reconstruction projects the requirement to install conduit or other fiber optic cabling.  This would cause most areas to organically receive this upgrade along the way.  I'm not actually opposed to the current incumbent having access to it or realizing the lower cost in conjunction with another project.  What I do take issue with is winter time construction of cabling that is not fiber, even if part of service restoration.  Extending the reach at that time can only provide value long-term.  I'm not seeing the incumbents making those decisions.

I could get behind road construction, at least in urban/surburan
areas.  For rural I think pole attachment is likely better all
around.

That said, what I'm more baffled about is that FTTH is not standard
in greenfield housing developments.  Even in FIOS territory many
developers install copper (as the developer installs it, not Verizon).
I've seen at least one story of Verizon retrofitting with FIOS a
neighborhood that hasn't been finished yet, and ripping out copper
that was never used in the first place!

Updating building codes and requirements is a slow process, so now is
the time to start.  FTTH when digging for water, power, gas lines,
cable, and phone is dirt cheap.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120327/bb1c297e/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list