From: up@3.am [mailto:up@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@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