Redundant diversity and rights of way

Hank Nussbacher hank at att.net.il
Mon Jul 23 06:47:55 UTC 2001


At 10:03 22/07/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

To those who find Right of Way interesting, read "Can They Dig It?" from 
the March 19, 2001 issue of Teledotcom:
http://www.teledotcom.com/article/TEL20010319S0026

-Hank



> > From: up at 3.am [mailto:up at 3.am]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 7:45 AM
> > Subject: RE: Update: CSX train derailment
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > Subject: RE: Update: CSX train derailment
> >
> > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 up at 3.am wrote:
> > > Subject: RE: Update: CSX train derailment
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > > > Subject: RE: Update: CSX train derailment
> > > > >
> > > > > :Have you checked available rights of way lately? They
> > > > > :haven't changed much for quite a while. Telecom has
> > > > > :not really any ability to build dedicated bridges for
> > > > > :telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever
> > > > > :possible. Following the paths of least cost/resistance,
> > > > > :this pretty much determines that rivers and bridges
> > > > > :become choke-points. The only real alternatives are
> > > > > :microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't
> > > > > :touch, even with your ten-foot pole).
> > > >
> > > > I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans
> > > > without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run
> > > > across some rivers much the same way, no?
> > >
> > > How were [you] planning to get to that
> > > [river|stream|lake|etc]shore? The rights of way lead to
> > > existing bridges and tunnels. Buying a contiguous right
> > > of way in America is exorbitantly expensive, if it's even
> > > possible, which I highly doubt. If you're already at a
> > > bridge, tunnel, whatever, (because hey, that's where
> > > the existing right of way you're using takes
> > > you) why wouldn't you use it?
> >
> > I didn't think we were discussing right-of-way issues, so
> > much as diverse redundancy issues at "choke points" (see
> > above).  If everybody's fiber goes through the same tunnel,
> > and the tunnel has a bad fire, that can lead to nasty
> > outages...wait, it just *did* that, didn't it (not that
> > this situation was even a river, but I digress)?  Anyway, it
> > would seem that unless you bury it fairly deeply under the
> > riverbed, it ain't such a great idea.  There goes my
> > Mensa application...
>
>Right of way and redundant diversity is deeply intertwined. One can't have
>diversity without redundant rights of way and one doesn't need redundant
>rights of way without the need for diversity. Having been through this, from
>the RBOC side, I can tell you that even the RBOCs have serious problems with
>this. Basically, the rights of way that are extant are often the ONLY rights
>of way obtainable. They were acquired decades ago, by AT&T and others, and
>any new rights of way are individually negotiated (and paid) at exhorbitant
>costs. It gets worse going through local municipalities that look at the
>telco as having near-government depth pockets (almost guaranteed to not be
>the case). Many of those municipalities also fly the "jolly roger" and don't
>mind resorting to extortionary practices (yes, were I still working at said
>RBOC, I would be disciplined for saying that).
>
>On the other hand, I can understand their [municipality] desire to integrate
>and consolidate the infrastructure going through their territory/domain and
>to minimize build-out impact and trenching activity in public areas. The
>problem is that this happens on a case by case basis and, in the case of an
>area like Los Angeles, mile by mile. This exacerbates the expense as
>cumulative cost, end to end, for a given route, increases with the number of
>municipalities that have to be paid along the way.
>
>I might point out that this is also deeply related to last-mile issues and
>why ILECs have such an advantage over CLECS. But, I digress.
>
>For rural routes and rights of way the problem is different and mainly based
>on geo-physical issues, like mountains, rivers, lakes, and fault-lines. As
>an example, many rights of way follow I-70, through the Rockies. This is
>because cutting an independent path, through 36 fourteeners, is enormously
>expensive and the Feds have already paid for I-70. Adding some conduit to an
>existing Interstate is substantially cheaper. It also gives you maintenance
>access to said conduit, that someone else will keep cleared, throughout the
>Rocky Mountain Winters. Tunnels and bridges are in this same catagory, as
>are oil pipelines and railroads. But, in each case, access to the right of
>way has to be negotiated with each owner. I guarantee that they've had the
>same issues, in obtaining their extant right of way, and will charge
>accordingly. IOW, it will be less expensive, but not by that much, usually
>involving some sort of revenue sharing.
>
>In short, one can theoretically demand redundant diversity of routes, but
>may not be able to achieve that goal in practice. Those that have higher
>expectations need to have those expectations examined.
>
>--
>R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
>Managing Director
>Morgan Hill Software Company
>t:01 925 373 3954
>c:01 925 352 3615
>f:01 925 373 9781




More information about the NANOG mailing list