3 ms·

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 t

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.
ensignavenger 11y ago
Hey fiberrun, I have been doing a lot of research on rural fiber networks for my community- I'd love to chat with someone with more experience in this area, if you (or anyone else reading this) is willing to reach out to me, check my profile for contact info!
- fiberrun 11y ago
  Found your email, I'll hit you up a bit later.
- fiberrun 11y ago
  Email sent.
mdaniel 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. You caught me only thinking of "town" as town and not the entirety. So in that way, I 100% agree with you that pulling pipes out to Farmer Bob's house is not a good use of capital or time. However, while I was considering the mistake I made, it also seems that burying the fiber isn't a good use of capital for almost the same reason. I would bet that these rural areas have power and phone (maybe even cable, too) provisioned via poles and thus stringing the fiber along the poles would be the approach I would take, barring some fantastic reason why that wouldn't work [copper handles high winds better? icing? who knows].
- fiberrun 11y ago
  > However, while I was considering the mistake I made, it also seems that burying the fiber isn't a good use of capital for almost the same reason. I would bet that these rural areas have power and phone (maybe even cable, too) provisioned via poles and thus stringing the fiber along the poles would be the approach I would take, Well, as they say, it depends. Purely on it's own aerial fiber is often cheaper than buried fiber to install. However the aerial plant is more exposed (both in good and bad), so lifetime costs depend on the location. The biggest issue is however access to poles and specifically at what cost. Pole fees and make ready work can easily push costs above direct burial costs, if there are no land usage fees and you can bury the fiber by plowing. > barring some fantastic reason why that wouldn't work [copper handles high winds better? icing? who knows]. No need to go all fancy. Just think of shotguns, squirrels and termites.

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.

ensignavenger 11y ago

Hey fiberrun, I have been doing a lot of research on rural fiber networks for my community- I'd love to chat with someone with more experience in this area, if you (or anyone else reading this) is willing to reach out to me, check my profile for contact info!

fiberrun 11y ago
Found your email, I'll hit you up a bit later.
fiberrun 11y ago
Email sent.

mdaniel 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. You caught me only thinking of "town" as town and not the entirety. So in that way, I 100% agree with you that pulling pipes out to Farmer Bob's house is not a good use of capital or time. However, while I was considering the mistake I made, it also seems that burying the fiber isn't a good use of capital for almost the same reason. I would bet that these rural areas have power and phone (maybe even cable, too) provisioned via poles and thus stringing the fiber along the poles would be the approach I would take, barring some fantastic reason why that wouldn't work [copper handles high winds better? icing? who knows].

fiberrun 11y ago
> However, while I was considering the mistake I made, it also seems that burying the fiber isn't a good use of capital for almost the same reason. I would bet that these rural areas have power and phone (maybe even cable, too) provisioned via poles and thus stringing the fiber along the poles would be the approach I would take, Well, as they say, it depends. Purely on it's own aerial fiber is often cheaper than buried fiber to install. However the aerial plant is more exposed (both in good and bad), so lifetime costs depend on the location. The biggest issue is however access to poles and specifically at what cost. Pole fees and make ready work can easily push costs above direct burial costs, if there are no land usage fees and you can bury the fiber by plowing. > barring some fantastic reason why that wouldn't work [copper handles high winds better? icing? who knows]. No need to go all fancy. Just think of shotguns, squirrels and termites.