dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed

campinfool

join:2006-02-24
Austin, TX
reply to cbrigante2

ROW

The thing about the ROW is mute. Lightspeed areas already have existing plant in the ROW. I doubt the city can say "hey you can't can't lash a new fiber on your existing strand or pull one through an existing duct". Those people are morons.


TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

said by campinfool:

The thing about the ROW is mute. Lightspeed areas already have existing plant in the ROW. I doubt the city can say "hey you can't can't lash a new fiber on your existing strand or pull one through an existing duct". Those people are morons.
I actually heard that at&t needed to put more/additional equipment out in the field to get the fibre close enough to the homes. There is still the issue of use though. Aren't at&t and the Cablecos paying some form of rent to the cites for the ROWs (poles, etc). If at&t tries to string additional wires along the poles, aren't they using more of the cities property than they paid for? Kind of like paying to rent one storage locker, but then taking a second for free. Just another point of view on the situation.

campinfool

join:2006-02-24
Austin, TX

Most aerial placements are usually on joint use poles owned by the power companies. If additional lines need to be run in the air, multiple cables can be lashed to a single strand. To the cities involved I don't see much difference in at&t running a new fiber in the ROW for lightspeed versus running a 50pr cable to feed a new strip center.



Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Actually, the ROWs are all owned by cities. If we are talking about pole attachments...Batavia, Geneva, and STC, IL all own their own poles as they all have their own electric and/or water utilities as well - for over 100 years.