how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by amigo_boy:I disagree. I'm pretty sure that if I dig up the street to run a cable to my neighbor's house, I'm going to be in trouble. I'm sure that if you pay relevant fees, obtain the proper permits, conduct an engineering study, and have your plan approved by your municipality, to include detouring traffic as necessary, that you can have your street dug up to bury a cable. | |
| Most municipalities require that if you bury something in the ROW that it be a "public" utility in that you offer service to everyone you can. Amigo_boy digging a cable across the street to his neighbor wouldn't qualify and he likely wouldn't be issued the permits.
What Amigo_boy and most of the people like him with zero knowledge of infrastructure don't know is that the digging up the street is damn expensive. I seriously doubt you could trench a 2 lane road in this country for less than $1500 in construction costs. The Labor, Equipment and material will easily exceed that, not even including the inspection fees, permits and testing. Now if you wanted to deploy a real utility, not only do you have all the construction costs, but you have engineering, plant development, marketing and Billing and customer related expenses.
There is a reason there are only a few over-builders in the market and it's mostly related to the inability to recover the cost of installation.
A build-out in a single average American city of more than a million is going to cost several billion dollars. That's a lot of money to pay back with interest. And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. | | |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by rahvin112:And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users.
That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).
For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). | |
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | Just plain incorrect. As FIOS is a perfect example. You as a single person could go and open a corporation and start. Any corporation with money is free to overlay on easements. Sure its expensive which is why you dont have many takers. | |
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).rchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. Existing utilities complicate installation, but it's not like this is a business that's just been created. They've been installing utilities in existing ROW for more than 200 years. Most states have dig laws that if you give at least 2 days notice you aren't responsible if you dig up an unmarked utility and that significantly reduces costs. The only time a new installation would be hit with costs for cutting an existing utility would be if they didn't call the dig service.
To answer your real question, yes it does cost more to install into existing ROW rather than greenfield development. But baring unmarked utilities other than slowing things down a slight bit it's not really a big deal. As for your second question, I've never heard of a situation where installation is hampered by the number of existing utilities where communication lines are concerned. In the installation of water or sewer there are spacing requirements to avoid cross contamination and as a result existing utilities can severely hamper installation, but with communication lines it's simply not an issue.
Fiber is routinely buried in the same trench with other utilities in green field development and even in brownfield installations we are talking lines that are at most inches in diameter where the existing ROW is typically, in most states, back of walk to back of walk (30' or more). Different states handle things differently but even if there were like 30 lines in the area from curb to back of sidewalk making a new installation exceedingly difficult it's not unheard of to simply install under the Curb or under the street itself, although costs will go up dramatically because of the additional number of hard surface repairs needed.
I've personally never heard of a situation where a telecom line couldn't be installed because of existing utilities. Again, you are dealing with cables that are inches in diameter, digging and installing new utilities is a common practice and there are many ways to skin the same cat, between trenching, directional drilling, microtunneling and a few dozen other construction practices it's simply not a big deal to install around other utilities (the only ones that are scary are high pressure (80-1200psi) gas lines because of the danger of an accidental breach). Insurance and bonding has little to do with cutting utilities because as I said most states have laws that if you call the dig line and it's not marked in the time period specified it's not your fault for cutting it and there isn't a single cost to the installer for breaking an existing utility. The purpose of insurance and bonding is to make sure the contractor doesn't walk away with the clients money, repair the ROW with substandard material or walk away without paying his employees and to cover unemployment and workplace injuries. Marked utilities are extremely easy to avoid, you need to understand that nearly every single time a roadway is widened most of the existing utilities are moved that would end up under the pavement because of the cost to repair anything under pavement. This is done routinely, the only reason greenfield is cheaper is because they typically dig one trench in greenfield and put all the utilities in it at the same time, saving the cost of individually trenching every single line. In addition in greenfield developments they don't typically have to worry about repairing pavement or concrete as it's not been installed yet. That's the only reason greenfield development is cheaper for utilities. It has nothing to do with the ROW or government.
said by amigo_boy:For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). And that is statement is exactly why your entire line of argument is complete BS. No municipality, state or county can restrict use of the ROW by public utilities for any reason such as there is existing utility already there. There is an entire body of law on this subject that has been built over the 200+ years this country has existed. Government arbitrarily restricting the use of the ROW would be a major violation of all kinds of constitutional protections, not the least of which is the equal protection clause.
Yes government regulates the use of the ROW, they set conditions on it's use (for example that it must be a public Utility or serve the public good), and they manage the ROW by requiring that companies file permits in advance detailing what will be done, and they require that the installer provide protections during construction (traffic control and safety procedures), that the ROW and surfaces are repaired afterwards and repaired properly (testing and inspection) and they charge fees for the permits for this to cover the costs incurred making sure these things are actually done.
But the key point here is that unequivocally no government agency can prohibit overbuilding. It's been ruled against in court numerous times. There is no such thing as a monopoly franchise agreement where they can legally block overbuilding. Sure the city can write the agreement and even sign it, but they can't block the overbuilder. The best they can do is erect a lot of red tape and increase costs for the overbuilder.
You argue cox has some natural advantage because they are already there, but the fact is that hampers them as much as it helps them. The reason is simple, Cox has likely rebuilt that network at least once and probably twice since installing it (and still carries the debt from all installations). Technology and requirements have changed twice since they originally installed the cable and they likely dug up and replaced significant portions of their cable network to meet expanding needs. They also have ongoing maintenance as copper is quite expensive to maintain and it has a LOT of problems. This the reason most baby bells and cable companies have billions of dollars of debt. Comcast has nearly 30 billion in debt, Verizon was pretty close to that total before the fairpoint and other deals that shed large amounts of debt and ATT and all the cable companies have similar levels of debt (unless they have gone through bankruptcy and shed most of the debt). RCN and WOW also have that level of debt and because they are over-builders they are also faced with very low profit margins.
It might make a good conspiracy to say that public ROW is the reason there are very few over-builders, but you are lying yourself if you believe it. The reason there are so few over-builders is that every single over-builder barely makes money and almost all of them have gone bankrupt. RCN is in probably the best markets and highest density municipalities in the US and they are lucky to survive every year.
Even after going through bankruptcy and shedding nearly all their debt they can barely make a profit. Consider that for a moment, they have no debt, a fully installed modern network and they can barely make money. You think creditors are lining up to loan money with that prime example of the value of over-building? Especially when the creditors take into account that the creditors that loaned RCN all the money to over-build got maybe a few cents on the dollar for all the money they loaned the company when it went through bankruptcy and the debt was vacated by the court?
No, there isn't overbuilding because there is no financial benefit to doing so. Would you loan a company money knowing you would get back a few cents for every dollar loaned? Stop blaming some fictitious ROW advantage for what is clearly a clean financial reason.
And finally, the ROW isn't some resource to be preserved like an endangered species. It's not going to be all used up some day. It's land, things are installed in or over it, in time those things are replaced and repaired and other things are built but at no point is the ROW ever going to be used up. It's so silly to even speculate that government is trying to preserve it for future generations. Preserve it from what? Being dissolved? Contaminated? Alien invasion? You appear to be arguing it's going to be used up and some day all the ROW will be gone.
Utilities don't use up the ROW, thousands of utilities could be installed in a single 2 lane Roadway by digging a single trench 20' or even 100' deep and installing everything vertically. Then adding another utility would be as simple as some direction drilling, micro-tunneling or other trench-less construction method. It's not the issue you make it out to be and by making these arguments you make your ignorance of infrastructure very very public.
Being ignorant of something isn't something to be embarrassed about, but don't turn around and take my explanation of why you are ignorant as an attack. | |
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to rody_44
And you are all forgetting that the existing corporations will use their existing capital to unfairly keep you from doing business in their territory. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112:To answer your real question, yes it does cost more to install into existing ROW rather than greenfield development. Which makes it not like just a "market" of competing services. It's not like someone can grow a competing business organically. For example, competing with Target by opening a web-based business from their home, then a small retail front at their local strip mall, then.....
There is no such organic entry into entertainment/broadband delivery. I can't string a line to a dozen of my neighbors, and grow from there.
said by rahvin112:And that is statement is exactly why your entire line of argument is complete BS. No municipality, state or county can restrict use of the ROW by public utilities ... Yes government regulates the use of the ROW, they set conditions on it's use (for example that it must be a public Utility or serve the public good), Except for that small exception, it's almost like a thriving, "free" market.
I'm going to call my city tomorrow and find out how someone can become a "public Utility." I've got a feeling that they'll say that since there's already a cable service occupying public easements and rights of way, it wouldn't serve the "public good" to use that finite space for another.
And, certainly an organically driven business (me serving a dozen neighbors) wouldn't.
I'll let you know what I find out. | |
| said by amigo_boy:Which makes it not like just a "market" of competing services. It's not like someone can grow a competing business organically. For example, competing with Target by opening a web-based business from their home, then a small retail front at their local strip mall, then..... There is no such organic entry into entertainment/broadband delivery. I can't string a line to a dozen of my neighbors, and grow from there. You could do exactly what you newly claim you couldn't. Your original premise is that you couldn't trench a line across the public ROW to your neighbor. I agreed to that single case (and clarified (proving of course that you either didn't read what I wrote or fail at reading comprehension) because it wouldn't be a public utility. BUT, and here is the key point if you are going to act like a public utility and offer service to everyone you can and provide service to more than a single secondary building you can get the permits to install in the ROW quite easily. Growing a business "organically" (what a stupid term BTW) is actually how businesses start and there is no ROW restriction that says small businesses are excluded. Do you realize how stupid it is to argue that small businesses can't use the public ROW? You might as well argue that minority or women owned businesses aren't allowed to use the ROW either.
There are tens of thousands of small business offering communication services using cables in the ROW.
said by amigo_boy:Except for that small exception, it's almost like a thriving, "free" market. Ignore the reality, keep making your failed argument, continuously alter your line of argument, use completely different examples and apply the same result to each, and setup a few more strawmen.
said by amigo_boy:I'm going to call my city tomorrow and find out how someone can become a "public Utility." I've got a feeling that they'll say that since there's already a cable service occupying public easements and rights of way, it wouldn't serve the "public good" to use that finite space for another. Call your city, those minimum wage employee manning the phones aren't going to know anything about it, but feel free to post back here about how they didn't know anything about it, or even better if like you they speculate about it without knowledge. The definition of what make a company a public utility is going to be defined in your states' code. That very simple fact escapes you.
The ROW is NOT EVER GOING TO BE USED UP. You don't know anything about infrastructure or Right-of-way laws in your state or anywhere else, if you truly want to educate yourself talk to a lawyer or an infrastructure based civil engineering consultant. They can educate you on your ignorance of right-of-way law and infrastructure based businesses.
said by amigo_boy:And, certainly an organically driven business (me serving a dozen neighbors) wouldn't. Yes, it would. But you would have to prove you actually know what you are doing and that would be a challenge. I'd suggest again that if you are actually considering such a move that you hire a civil engineering consultant to actually plan your infrastructure and a lawyer to set up your business because you clearly don't understand either.
The stakes are quite high in the infrastructure business, most states will require a professional engineers seal on any construction plans so there is a chain of liability and a minimum level of assurance that multiple people aren't going to be killed or millions of dollars of infrastructure ruined by some Fool installing a telecom cable to his neighbors.
said by amigo_boy:I'll let you know what I find out. You do that, but I don't actually expect you will do so. Your goal here isn't to actually learn anything or educate yourself. You will continue your ignorant speculation about ROW law unabated though, that I'm sure of. The funniest part is were what you were saying actually true, it would be trivial to prove it. Where's the proof? | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rahvin112: BUT, and here is the key point if you are going to act like a public utility and offer service to everyone you can and provide service to more than a single secondary building you can get the permits to install in the ROW quite easily. That's not what I was told. I called two city offices and was told a cable service wouldn't be considered a desirable use of the public's property (in the "public's interest," as you termed it) because the public is already served by a cable provider.
The problem with your reasoning is, even if I could get access to the public property (like the incumbents did), it's a chicken-egg thing. I can't serve "everyone" without starting with "someone."
That is a significant barrier to the competition which you insist exists. (And, according to my city, even if I wanted to serve everyone, they would claim that, since there already is a cable service serving everyone, mine wouldn't be a use of finite public resources for a purpose that is in "the public's interest," as you put it.).
said by rahvin112:Growing a business "organically" (what a stupid term BTW) (Chuckle.).
Stupid because it doesn't support your argument? Even though it is how the majority of business in the US starts? Small? Instead of "poof! dozens of franchises across the city."
said by rahvin112:there is no ROW restriction that says small businesses are excluded. That's exactly contrary to what you said earlier, when I suggested that I'd like to trench across the street to my first 10 customers. You said that can't be done. A person has to be prepared to trench the entire city.
But, as I already noted, my city says either is a no-go.
said by rahvin112:There are tens of thousands of small business offering communication services using cables in the ROW. I guarantee you there are not tens of thousands of cables in the ground in my area. There is exactly 1. From what I can gather, there will only be 1 in the foreseeable future. Largely due to the public's right of way not being available for widespread use.
said by rahvin112:said by amigo_boy:I'll let you know what I find out. You do that, but I don't actually expect you will do so. Your goal here isn't to actually learn anything or educate yourself. You will continue your ignorant speculation about ROW law unabated though, that I'm sure of. The funniest part is were what you were saying actually true, it would be trivial to prove it. Where's the proof? Or, I'll get the education you don't want me to have? | |
|
