dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-01-19 08:37:30: It's hard to suffer a technical delay when you've consistently been a little murky about when your service will be up and running, but Google appears to be running into a few snags in Kansas City over fiber deployment. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

WTF Is Kansas City's Problem

quote:
What’s more, the city and county governments are one, and that same Unified Government of Wyandotte County owns the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities and its utility poles. That figured to make negotiations over installing Google’s fiber easier.

Now it turns out that differences over where and how to hang wires on those poles, and what fees or installation costs may be required, have created a troublesome bump in plans to launch the project at “Google speed.”
KC (both of them) should be moving heaven and earth to make it as easy as possible for Google to do this! But as always, the right palms aren't being greased and the government, once again, is blocking the way for next generation broadband.

Too bad an enterprising municipality isn't saying "Hey Google! Come here, you can install broadband and we won't get up your asses about it!"

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

I find it funny that Google is now seeing what existing cable & telco companies have had to deal with for years when dealing with local government. They aren't used to having to payoff/bribe local officials to get anything done.
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
After reading thru the Kansas City Star, the main problem is hanging google's cable in the 40 inch zone, normally reserved for power.

Otherwise, cable tv and telephone have to lower their attachments, which takes time and costs money, which neither will do for free. Hanging cable in the 40 inch zone can be very risky from a safety point of view.

To really mess up the install, it will take just one lineman contacting the 7.2 kv, or higher primary lines to show the folly of hanging cable in the power zone.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I find it funny that Google is now seeing what existing cable & telco companies have had to deal with for years when dealing with local government. They aren't used to having to payoff/bribe local officials to get anything done.

Exactly. Which is why this will be the goog's one and only beta network...

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to Austinloop

Premium Member

to Austinloop
said by Austinloop:

After reading thru the Kansas City Star, the main problem is hanging google's cable in the 40 inch zone, normally reserved for power.

Otherwise, cable tv and telephone have to lower their attachments, which takes time and costs money, which neither will do for free. Hanging cable in the 40 inch zone can be very risky from a safety point of view.

To really mess up the install, it will take just one lineman contacting the 7.2 kv, or higher primary lines to show the folly of hanging cable in the power zone.

Sounds like Google should have picked a city that had less crowded utility poles, or which would be more proactive in working towards solving the problem.

It is Google (or any other provider) for that matter that holds all the cards here. I would hope that both KCs understand this and plan accordingly. Look at what happened to Boston and other parts of Massachusetts, or the city of Buffalo NY when they made life difficult for Verizon when they wanted to install FIOS. The local governments there got a big fat "F-U" from Verizon, and the people there cannot get FIOS.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

said by pnh102:

Sounds like Google should have picked a city that had less crowded utility poles, or which would be more proactive in working towards solving the problem.

It is Google (or any other provider) for that matter that holds all the cards here. I would hope that both KCs understand this and plan accordingly. Look at what happened to Boston and other parts of Massachusetts, or the city of Buffalo NY when they made life difficult for Verizon when they wanted to install FIOS. The local governments there got a big fat "F-U" from Verizon, and the people there cannot get FIOS.

Oh, I get KC was all for this and even rolled out the red carpet.....until the rubber hit the road and now they are looking for an extra payday.

If Google gets held up by the local governments, then they would be wise to take their ball and go home and leave a note as to why they left including naming names and laying blame.
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
You will be hard pressed to find any city with uncrowded utility poles. When I was a telco engineer, I received requests for attachment and moving plant to allow attachment on a weekly basis, all of which required money from the entity wanting attachment.

It is a dollar thing, you want me to move my cable attachment down to accommodate your attachment, it will cost x dollars per pole, then multiply that by 2 or 3 depending if cable tv has attachments, or someone else has attachments also.

I, frankly, don't see this as the city giving google a hard time, but trying to maintain the 40 inch electrical clearance, to avoid safety issues.

What I don't understand is why google didn't see this, didn't they field survey the cities?
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
To have a level playing field, Google should not be treated any differently than AT&T/Bell or the power company using these poles.

So, the only question is, is Google being treated unfairly compared to others? Surely some standards need to be applied to use of utility poles. Telco and power and Google all would benefit from an easier process.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

It seemed so easy on paper...

...and then reality set in.
Google's demo project may prove more educational then I thought.
w4ncr8
join:2000-10-27

w4ncr8 to Austinloop

Member

to Austinloop

Re: WTF Is Kansas City's Problem

Sometime in the future power telecom companies will pay a company to maintain utility poles and the underground systems ride away for industry there are plenty of ways to make money!
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop

Member

Regardless of who maintains the utility poles, someone will have to pay to have existing attachments changed, so that really changes nothing concerning attachments in the 40 inch safety zone.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology

Premium Member

said by aztecnology:

Exactly. Which is why this will be the goog's one and only beta network...

For posterity...
"In the end, google will realize that they don't want to operate a network, will have spent a bunch of time and money to realize they have created just a bigger lab/network than what they started in palo alto. Eventually some local isp will likely take over..."

»Re: Public is expecting multiple service providers ....

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to Austinloop

Premium Member

to Austinloop
I'm not disputing the safety aspects of this. I am simply saying that it is imperative that both cities come up with a solution that addresses these concerns.
pnh102

pnh102 to axus

Premium Member

to axus
said by axus:

To have a level playing field, Google should not be treated any differently than AT&T/Bell or the power company using these poles.

Do people want a level playing field, or do they want next generation broadband?

Simply telling Google, and by extension any future ISPs, "no", is not the solution.
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
pnh, unfortunately, the solution involves having other utilities move their attachments to make room for google. That costs money, are you saying that the other utilities should move just as a favor to google.

I don't know how much experience you have with utility outside plant, but safety is the #1 priority, hence the 40 inch zone. Perhaps if the municipalities would reimburse the existing utilities to move their attachments, google could get it for free.

As I said earlier, google is obviously whining because they failed to do a complete field survey to determine all the problems. Incidentally, this clearance issue is normally observable from the ground without a lot of high tech equipment.

My sympathy for google is extremely limited.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
So who do you believe should pay the cost of improvements to the electrical plant/poles so that google can hang fiber in a safe and legal manner?
residents of KC have paid for poles adequate for power and to carry telephone and cable lines. In return the telco and cableco pay a per pole attachment fee to payback the extra cost of the larger poles required to hold the weight/stresses of the extra layers of wiring. The Idea being that the electrical customers will never pay more then the cost of poles if the carried ONLY the electrical lines.
If one of the users causes the poles to be changed/upgraded to a bigger size than they should pay the additional cost plus the remainder of the unamortized life (about 40 years total) of the existing poles either directly or through a higher per pole annual fee.
typical wooden poles cost between $3,000 and $13000 a piece installed (3 phase power plus a telco and cable layer would require a 36-44 foot pole-- in the $11k range PER POLE plus regular maintaince, insurance (drunks/storms/ other acts of god) add 2 feet for a new layer of fiber/cable/copper/any new overbuilder must pay that cost.
Google doesn't get a free ride.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by axus:

To have a level playing field, Google should not be treated any differently than AT&T/Bell or the power company using these poles.

Do people want a level playing field, or do they want next generation broadband?

If it were that cheap and easy the cablecos and telcos would have every square inch of the country covered. But its not so its not...

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
said by tshirt:

So who do you believe should pay the cost of improvements to the electrical plant/poles so that google can hang fiber in a safe and legal manner?

the residents of KC should. after all, they wanted Google to come in the first place.

if not, then Google should scrub the whole thing and make sure the world knows why they did it.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

All the residents?
even those that don't want/can't afford more service than they already have?
So you're are saying any large corporation can come to YOUR town, hype something THEY(and some residents) think is important (even though Google says this is just an experiment) and then force the costs onto the city/taxpayers/residents?
Is that really what you want?
Just because you like the idea of FTTH, do you really want it(or anything else) in the way that implies?

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
said by tshirt:

So who do you believe should pay the cost of improvements to the electrical plant/poles so that google can hang fiber in a safe and legal manner?

Google pays for all installation costs. It appears attachment fees are some kind of one time fee the owner of the pole(electric company) charges separate from the cost of installing the cable.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

said by insomniac84:

said by tshirt:

So who do you believe should pay the cost of improvements to the electrical plant/poles so that google can hang fiber in a safe and legal manner?

Google pays for all installation costs. It appears attachment fees are some kind of one time fee the owner of the pole(electric company) charges separate from the cost of installing the cable.

I'm pretty sure RoW pole fees are monthly.

LazMan
Premium Member
join:2003-03-26
Beverly Hills, CA

LazMan

Premium Member

said by dvd536:

said by insomniac84:

said by tshirt:

So who do you believe should pay the cost of improvements to the electrical plant/poles so that google can hang fiber in a safe and legal manner?

Google pays for all installation costs. It appears attachment fees are some kind of one time fee the owner of the pole(electric company) charges separate from the cost of installing the cable.

I'm pretty sure RoW pole fees are monthly.

Typically, there are two fees - the "Make-ready" or installation/attachement fees; which is a one-time charge at installation, and covers attaching to the pole, and any other charges required (adding guys, re-arrangments, etc).

There are also RoW or SSA (shared-service agreement) fees, which are a fixed monthly, recurring fee.

ALSO, it's pretty common for every "tennant" on the pole to pay a percentage of repairs/relocations, should a pole be damaged, or need to be relocated for roadwork, etc.

To me, it sounds like Google didn't understand the business they were getting into... Make-ready charges are common, and just part of doing utility construction on a shared structure.

This is all seperate from the actual construction charges, that the contractor charges for supplying and placing the cable, strand, lashing, etc...

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to dvd536

Premium Member

to dvd536
They may pay monthly but most places they are calculated on an annual basis. (remember this is a long term agreement) and some pole owners are considering/have added a sustantial deposit/bonding fee, after they saw the costs of removing abandoned pole mounted equipment (some failed muni and other mesh wifi left rate payers with big bills in assorted cities)
jophan
Premium Member
join:2009-07-12
Jenkintown, PA

jophan to dvd536

Premium Member

to dvd536
Monthly attachment fees pay for the pole itself: depreciation, property taxes, maintenance (like tree trimming, safety inspections), a return on investment to the shareholders and the taxes on that return. If the power company owns the pole, the telephone and cable companies pay the same attachment fee, and vice versa.

I worked in telephone engineering when cable came into our area. Every pole had to be manually inspected and hundreds of them were replaced with taller ones to provide extra attachment spaces at the cable companies' expense. You can't compromise the clearances, from the lowest cable to the ground and from the highest to the lowest electric attachment.

One option is to "wrap" the pole, putting attachments on both the road and field sides, but electric doesn't like that because it makes it hard for technicians to climb above them.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

pnjunction

Premium Member

Impossible

I have it on good troll/shill authority that setting up a fibre ISP is so easy and cheap that anyone who is unhappy with the cable/telco duopoly raping them can do it.
FloridaBoy
join:2009-06-22
Bradenton, FL

FloridaBoy

Member

EPB IN Chattanooga seems smart after this.

An Electric Company puts fiber on their poles and has the personnel already trained to deal with high power levels in place.

Seems like they did it right.

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

1 edit

alchav

Member

It's apparent Google Planners had No Plan!

Since I heard years ago about Google's 1 Gbps Fiber, I have been asking and looking for their Plan. For one thing hanging Fiber on poles to me is ridiculous. All this wiring should be out of site and underground. That's why I think Google should have had a Plan to bring their Fiber to a Point of Presence near or in the City, and from there it would be up to the City to disperse the Fiber from there.

mmmmmgoogle
@optonline.net

mmmmmgoogle

Anon

Purchase Fios

Google should go ahead and purchase Verizon's Fios Network. Verizon is trying to get out of the landline Network(copper and Fiber(Fios). Thats why Verizon stopped building any more Fios. Verizon only cares about Wireless and the LTE technology. This would be a perfect opportunity for Google to swoop down and save the day hopefully for people who want fiber and can't get it
Expand your moderator at work
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop to jophan

Member

to jophan

Re: WTF Is Kansas City's Problem

When I was in telco engineering, wrapping the pole was an excellent way to get a visit in your office by the splicing and placing foreman questioning your engineer performance in language not suitable for mixed company.
page: 1 · 2 · next