On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 up@3.am wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
: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?
Hey, genius, I got a question for you. How were 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? Your .sig lists you as CEO, yet you seem to lack the basic knowledge that corporate officers are beholden to their shareholders, doing what's cheap right now vs. what makes sense over time. The forces driving major telcos are many, and long range planning at the expense of today's stock price is not one of them. Others have brought up the issues with cabling across an active river trade route, so I'll not rehash them. Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk>