7 ms·

In my mental model, it's laying the conduit that is expensive (but the collective clearly has an edge over a traditional vendor because they presumably don't ha

by mdaniel 11y ago

In my mental model, it's laying the conduit that is expensive (but the collective clearly has an edge over a traditional vendor because they presumably don't have to get permits from the towns), followed by the cost of the actual fiber and/or equipment. But hopefully once that conduit is in place, if Super Awesome Fiber 2.0 comes along, they are one small remote controlled fiber-pulling device away from stringing the updated medium through said conduit. I am purposefully not even addressing the multiplicative power of multi-modal fiber connections, or any such in-medium improvements.

amalag 11y ago
When ISPs get federal money to lay fiber they will never lay conduit because then they would not get money again when "Super Awesome Fiber 2.0" comes around.
- fiberrun 11y ago
  Installing conduit and pulling the fiber is about three times more expensive than just doing direct burial fiber. In rural areas it can be more cost effective to just do direct burial fiber. Fiber strands are also quite cheap. It is often faster, cheaper and easier to direct bury a fiber cable with "enough" fiber strands to cater for current and any forseeable demand than to install a condiit system in rural areas. Furthermore it is quite rare to replace the fiber in a last mile network. I can't recall a single instance since single mode fiber was introduced. It just isn't cost effective. It's much easier, cheaper and faster to just change the electronics/optics. Even adding more fiber strands by means of a new cable is rare. Again it just isn't cost effective. It's much easier, cheaper and faster to just change the electronics/optics. Even so, in rural areas it is just cheaper to plow down another cable than to build a conduit network. In summary, a conduit system is more expensive to install, repair and maintain than a direct burial network. Aerial systems are generally even cheaper, but have their own downsides. A direct burial network might not be as flexible and easily upgradeable as a conduit system, but sometimes this does not matter, especially if you are on a fixed budget.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "Installing conduit and pulling the fiber is about three times more expensive than just doing direct burial fiber. In rural areas it can be more cost effective to just do direct burial fiber." True, but everyone also fights the laws around making sure the same ground doesn't get torn up again and again. Where I lived in Maryland (which installed FIOS, then comcast upgrades, then a municipal broadband network), they literally tore up the same streets 3 times in a year and a half. This is why it's so expensive. But nobody wants to have to subsidize anyone else when they do work, so they fight regulations around burying extra/empty conduit tooth and nail.
    - ensignavenger 11y ago
      If your crossing pavement, it makes since to add conduit. It also makes since for cities to require anyone tearing the concrete/pavement up to allow other companies to lay conduit at the same time- it doesn't cost anything extra to the company doing the tearing up to let others install conduit into the same trench. (Perhaps a bit of time, but the time they are alloted to get their extra conduit in should be minimal.)
      - fiberrun 11y ago
        > If your crossing pavement, it makes since to add conduit. Yes, of course. I'm not advocating direct burial in all circumstances, just that it should be considered on it's own merits in rural deployments. Likewise one should not always build a full conduit system. "It also makes since for cities to require anyone tearing the concrete/pavement up to allow other companies to lay conduit at the same time- it doesn't cost anything extra to the company doing the tearing up to let others install conduit into the same trench." It always takes a bit of time, effort and planning. Subcontractors also want to be paid for any extra work, so there is always the question of who will carry that cost. There are a lot of models for sharing digging costs, from simple co-dig projects to full scale infrastructure sharing efforts as in Stockholm.
    - fiberrun 11y ago
      > But nobody wants to have to subsidize anyone else when they > do work, so they fight regulations around burying > extra/empty conduit tooth and nail. The funny thing is that sharing dig costs would not result in a subsidy for anyone. It would actually save costs for all parties, but competition being what it is, large players would rather take the full cost hit than allow a potential competitor to also lower their costs. Barrier of entry and all that. The EU is actually about to mandate shared digging to solve this problem.

by mdaniel 11y ago

amalag 11y ago

When ISPs get federal money to lay fiber they will never lay conduit because then they would not get money again when "Super Awesome Fiber 2.0" comes around.

fiberrun 11y ago
Installing conduit and pulling the fiber is about three times more expensive than just doing direct burial fiber. In rural areas it can be more cost effective to just do direct burial fiber. Fiber strands are also quite cheap. It is often faster, cheaper and easier to direct bury a fiber cable with "enough" fiber strands to cater for current and any forseeable demand than to install a condiit system in rural areas. Furthermore it is quite rare to replace the fiber in a last mile network. I can't recall a single instance since single mode fiber was introduced. It just isn't cost effective. It's much easier, cheaper and faster to just change the electronics/optics. Even adding more fiber strands by means of a new cable is rare. Again it just isn't cost effective. It's much easier, cheaper and faster to just change the electronics/optics. Even so, in rural areas it is just cheaper to plow down another cable than to build a conduit network. In summary, a conduit system is more expensive to install, repair and maintain than a direct burial network. Aerial systems are generally even cheaper, but have their own downsides. A direct burial network might not be as flexible and easily upgradeable as a conduit system, but sometimes this does not matter, especially if you are on a fixed budget.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "Installing conduit and pulling the fiber is about three times more expensive than just doing direct burial fiber. In rural areas it can be more cost effective to just do direct burial fiber." True, but everyone also fights the laws around making sure the same ground doesn't get torn up again and again. Where I lived in Maryland (which installed FIOS, then comcast upgrades, then a municipal broadband network), they literally tore up the same streets 3 times in a year and a half. This is why it's so expensive. But nobody wants to have to subsidize anyone else when they do work, so they fight regulations around burying extra/empty conduit tooth and nail.
  - ensignavenger 11y ago
    If your crossing pavement, it makes since to add conduit. It also makes since for cities to require anyone tearing the concrete/pavement up to allow other companies to lay conduit at the same time- it doesn't cost anything extra to the company doing the tearing up to let others install conduit into the same trench. (Perhaps a bit of time, but the time they are alloted to get their extra conduit in should be minimal.)
    - fiberrun 11y ago
      > If your crossing pavement, it makes since to add conduit. Yes, of course. I'm not advocating direct burial in all circumstances, just that it should be considered on it's own merits in rural deployments. Likewise one should not always build a full conduit system. "It also makes since for cities to require anyone tearing the concrete/pavement up to allow other companies to lay conduit at the same time- it doesn't cost anything extra to the company doing the tearing up to let others install conduit into the same trench." It always takes a bit of time, effort and planning. Subcontractors also want to be paid for any extra work, so there is always the question of who will carry that cost. There are a lot of models for sharing digging costs, from simple co-dig projects to full scale infrastructure sharing efforts as in Stockholm.
  - fiberrun 11y ago
    > But nobody wants to have to subsidize anyone else when they > do work, so they fight regulations around burying > extra/empty conduit tooth and nail. The funny thing is that sharing dig costs would not result in a subsidy for anyone. It would actually save costs for all parties, but competition being what it is, large players would rather take the full cost hit than allow a potential competitor to also lower their costs. Barrier of entry and all that. The EU is actually about to mandate shared digging to solve this problem.