Appendix C: Land Development and Infrastructure Installation Land Development and Construction Developers in the Ottawa area have varying views on the need for and their commitment to high-speed telecommunications services. Options that could be considered as a part of this strategy and planning range from doing nothing to installing complex cabling and duct systems ready to be connected to a telecom service provider's network. The following information summarizes the discussions with two land development firms, Minto Developments Inc. and Urbandale, and is followed by the plan for future development in Ottawa. The interviews with Minto and Urbandale were held on September 17 and October 4, 2002 respectively. Background Information Both firms (Minto Developments Inc. and Urbandale) have a large development base in Ottawa with a mix of development activities from commercial office towers to residential subdivisions. Permitting and Municipal Issues Two years ago, before amalgamation, the smaller communities adjacent to Ottawa were growing quickly and had permitting and development processes in place that made requirements relatively easy from a developer's perspective. There was very little growth in the Ottawa urban area and, because Ottawa City staff did not do a lot of it, the permitting and development processes were not as smooth or fast. Since amalgamation, the permitting and development process of the amalgamated City is based on the old Ottawa system. The process is slower and somewhat more cumbersome than some of the adjacent communities processes were. Many of the smaller communities had (and still have) different rules concerning development issues (set back requirements, etc). These rules have not been coordinated yet through the new city. Despite all of the above information, the process in Ottawa is workable and is better than some other communities where these firms do business. Developer Issues to be addressed in the plan What is required to have smart buildings13 and what equipment needs to be installed to meet that need? Some developers are willing to do what is needed once they know. Others are willing to install telecom infrastructure or duct only if someone else is willing to pay for it. The general philosophy was that customers are not asking for high-speed telecom services (beyond what they can get today) so why should a developer pay for something customers do not want? With most of the discussions, the developers interviewed had opposing views where one agreed with the concept and was willing to move forward in that way while the other was only willing to do it if another party was paying. One of the principal options discussed and comments made was whether the developer was willing to install duct and/or fibre in residential subdivisions to each home and along the roadways. Answers ranged from "We would be willing to do that since the incremental costs of that duct are minimal when installing the other services" to "It is not currently essential. It is not fair to exclude the developer as a partner but require this type of infrastructure. Customers aren't asking for it so why should the developer pay?" Very similar responses were received to the question of a developer paying for and installing duct and/or fibre from the building to the road for commercial developments. Summary of Developer Comments
The City's Procurement of Telecommunications Services Telecom Ottawa provides the services required to connect City of Ottawa data facilities through the Telecom Ottawa fibre network. Currently, City connectivity to sites is a mix of 10Mbps, T1, wireless and dial up. A migration to 100 Mbps and 1Gbps service provided by Telecom Ottawa is currently underway. The City inherited many telecommunication contracts through the amalgamation with various terms and timing. City voice requirements are generally on Bell Centrex service. New City facilities are a challenge for the City's IT department since budget constraints limit funding available for telecom connectivity. One of the City's goals is to eliminate rural dial up connectivity as the only available option in areas of the City with no current broadband service. The City has a network renewal project underway mainly dealing with the issues surrounding all of the inherited systems during amalgamation. Applications and opportunities. City staff are looking at Voice over the Internet (VoIP) for the future. Other electronic services (E-services) issues and the services being considered are:
Because planning in the City's IT department has been focused on the requirements of amalgamation (and this work is expected to be completed in the spring of 2003) actual detailed cost information regarding detailed budget amounts for the various sites and telecommunications related services is not readily available. IT staff mentioned that budget information for the IT department would be of very little value since the budget is continually under review and it is so "tight" that there is very little opportunity to have funds to leverage. The City's Rights-of-way, Towers and Other Infrastructure The City of Ottawa has a significant influence on the implementation of any type of high-speed telecom infrastructure. In this section we outline current practices, comments from community sectors influenced by those practices including the carriers and development industry and in the summary section suggest ways that the City's influence can be used to facilitate high-speed telecom initiatives. Current City Right Of Way (ROW) management Practices: There is currently a Bylaw at the City of Ottawa concerning cutting and reinstatement of roads. It applies to all roads. It covers the entire City of Ottawa. For arterial roads, the bylaw also includes a recovery of the costs involved in pavement degradation and a 3-year moratorium on any new cuts (except in cases of emergency). Telecom firms must have a Municipal Access Agreement (MAA) with the City of Ottawa to get permits for use of the City ROWs. Without this MAA the permit applications must go to Council for approval. New firms have 6 months of operation before the formal MAA must be completed. Ottawa was one of the first cities to actually complete and formalize an MAA with Bell Canada, (in February 2002). The MAA covers the main principles suggested by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).Four of these are:
Some issues regarding the City's MAA requirements with the carriers are controversial. The City can require the carrier to install an extra duct for the use of others. The installing carrier owns this duct and charges to others are to be held to the market rate at the time. Carriers installing fibre can be required to make dark fibres available for the City's use. (This is currently under review). When relocation is required of the telecom plant due to City work (road widening etc), the telecom firm pays 100% of relocation costs (except Bell Canada as the incumbent carrier. Bell pays something less than 100% of the cost.). All carriers dislike bearing 100% of the costs. Permitting Issues. All City work involved with issuance of permits to telecom firms is intended to be done on a cost recovery basis. Modeling is currently under way at the City to determine what the full cost of permitting actually is. City staff feels that the current charges recover as little as 25% of the actual costs. Once this modeling and cost changes are completed, this eventual permit cost may be an incentive for the carriers to coordinate their systems and do more efficient infrastructure planning. A summary of comments from a survey of the service providers about permitting issues in Ottawa is:
Ottawa has a Public Utility Coordinating Committee (PUCC). It is currently under study for improvements in process. There is a central registry for all ROW infrastructures. It is kept up to date and the users all share in the cost for this service with the City paying 50% and the others paying proportionate to their usage. There is a poling process. If a carrier wants to install cable, a poll is done of all interested parties to make sure that no one else has a desire to install plant at the time of the original installation. There is some concern with this process. There is no set time for others to indicate interest (or not) possibly delaying work. The City's position on installations is that there is an equal opportunity for all telecom firms. If a new development is being done, all carriers have the opportunity to place their plant in the trench. (Residential or commercial development). This is supported by a City bylaw and is relatively recent. Comments about the City's permitting process from a service provider14:
Installation options. City staff has seen the Stream sewer technology work in Toronto. Nothing has been done with that technology in Ottawa. Staff feels it is a good option for retrofit installations avoiding roadwork. The following information is from the staff at the City of Ottawa and entails more information concerning Right-of-Way Management Practices at the City. Regulatory Tools There are two regulatory tools used by City Council to manage its rights of ways by telecommunication companies ("telecoms") wishing to use and access the municipal roads to install their equipment. These are: the Municipal Access Agreement, and the Road Cut By-law. Telecoms wishing to use the City's roads are required to enter into a Municipal Access Agreement whereby it agrees to a number of terms and conditions for the right to access the rights of ways. The Road Cut By-law requires that no person shall make a cut in the road without first obtaining a permit from the City. Municipal Access Agreements City Council, at its meeting of March 28, 2001, confirmed policies of the former Region and the former City of Ottawa and approved a policy authorizing the General Manager, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works to issue road cut permits only to telecommunications companies that have a Municipal Access Agreement (MAA) in place with the City of Ottawa or to those companies that have complied with interim authority requirements. Although telecommunication companies generally have a statutory right to use a municipal public right-ofway, this is subject to the consent of the municipality. The process, terms and conditions for granting municipal consent are embodied in a legal document called a Municipal Access Agreement. Councils of both the former Region and the former City of Ottawa directed staff to negotiate municipal access agreements with telecommunications companies on the basis of the five right-of-way management principles developed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).
With one exception, Council policy is that the issuance of road cut permits is subject to a telecommunication company accepting these five principles, and agreeing to negotiate an MAA. The exception relates to a pending Decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and allows telecommunication companies to make its acceptance of the fifth principle subject to the CRTC decision on compensation in excess of costs. The ability of municipalities to insist on needed elements in an MAA was the subject of a CRTC decisiont in January 2001 with respect to a dispute between the City of Vancouver and Ledcor Industries about the terms and conditions associated with the use of Vancouver's public rights-of-way by Ledcor. Although the specific decision is binding only on the City of Vancouver and Ledcor Industries, the CRTC indicated that it expects that the general principles articulated would be applicable in resolving disputes that may arise elsewhere. Although the CRTC recognized some of the key elements with respect to municipal interests in managing public rights-of-way, the CRTC fell short of recognizing all of the principles. Moreover, and more significantly, the CRTC assumed for itself complete control over the use of the right-of-way by telecommunication companies. In other words, it denied a municipality's right to manage its right-of-way, and claimed for itself the final say on what staff believes are municipal rights-of-way management matters. These shortcomings raise significant concerns for the municipalities and constitute a fundamental blow to municipal ability to safely and efficiently manage public rights-of-way and consequently, City Council, at is meeting of March 28, 2001, authorized staff to support an appeal of CRTC Decision 2001-23. The Federal Court of Appeal heard the appeal in October 2002 and a decision is expected within 6 months. In view of a pending CRTC Decision, the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (Region) and the former City of Ottawa modified their policies to permit telecommunications companies to make the acceptance of the FCM principles subject to the eventual outcome of the CRTC Decision and also decided not to pursue the matter of compensation in excess of costs (FCM's fifth principle) pending resolution of the CRTC case. Excess Duct Capacity Policy On of the key provisions of the Municipal Access Agreements is to require a carrier to build excess conduit capacity for use by other carriers. Generally, except for lateral connections and except when waived by the City, a telecom carrier is required, when installing new conduits by open cut along or across a road rightof- way, to install over and above its own planned requirement as excess capacity a minimum of one (1) four (4) inch conduit or the equivalent thereof as approved by the City. The telecom carrier is required to make such excess capacity available at competitive market rates for use by Third Party telecommunications carriers. At the option of the City, to be exercised at the time of approval of the work, the telecom carrier is also required to install additional ducts on behalf of the City at the same time as the work is installed. Should the City exercise this option, the costs of the additional ducts will be the responsibility of the City and be based on the incremental costs incurred by the telecom carrier in installing the additional ducts. The additional ducts will become the property of the City, which, if made available for use by Third Party telecommunications carriers, shall be at competitive market rates. Access to New Developments by Telecom Companies In 1998, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario, a major developer, Metrus Development Inc., decided to permit only its affiliate, Futureway Communications Ltd., to place cable and other telecommunications facilities in one of its subdivision developments. These facilities were to provide cable and telephony services to residents that would occupy the development. The developer specifically denied access to other telecommunications companies. Bell Canada and Shaw Communications requested the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to intervene on their behalf. In its subsequent decision on Public Notice CRTC 98-35, the CRTC declined to take any action on the basis that Bell, Shaw and other telecommunications companies would have the right to construct and operate their facilities after the registration of the plan of subdivision and the transfer of the rights-of-way to the Town of Richmond Hill. The problem with the CRTC decision is that by the time the development lands involved became public rights-of-way, the original cable trenches had already been filled in and restored. To come along a second time and retrench newly finished roads and boulevards is exceeding costly to a telecommunications company and very disruptive to the community. In addition, a second round of construction works can result in permanent pavement damage, exposes workers and the public to work zone hazards and contributes to noise and air pollution. Because of the expense involved in going in after the fact, Bell Canada decided not to install any of its facilities at all in several new subdivisions in the Richmond Hill area. This raised further concerns with potential loss of service resulting from business failures, with the reliability of service in general, and with the 911 service in particular. It also deprived customers of having their choice of telecommunications providers, thus defeating one of the CRTC's prime objectives, effective competition. In a dissenting opinion CRTC Commissioner Stuart Langford wrote that:
It is known that senior CRTC officials, although they felt the decision was not a good one, were of the view that the CRTC did not have the authority to intervene until the lands became public property. To date, this problem has not been experienced in Ottawa, but the potential is there. In discussions with Bell Canada on a Municipal Access Agreement, Bell had indicated that this issue was of great importance to it. In view of this, staff proposed that henceforth as a condition of plan of subdivision approval all developers be required to give equal opportunity for access to their developments, including lands for future public rights-of-way and lands involving access to buildings, to all telecommunications companies regulated by the CRTC (i.e. Canadian Carriers and Broadcast Distributing Undertakings, etc) to install, repair, maintain and operate telecommunications facilities and that these facilities be designed and constructed (including any trench restorations) to the same municipal standards and requirements as if they were located on the City's public rights-of-way. In April, 2002, in approving a Municipal Access Agreement with Bell, City Council approved the following "access to new developments" clause, by which the City agreed to include a condition in its subdivision agreements requiring a developer to provide to all telecommunications companies the opportunity to install ducts in a common trench within future roads, and from the road to, but not connecting to, the buildings. "The Owner shall by written notice to all telecommunications carriers and distribution undertakings regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and operating within the City and as specified by the City provide the opportunity to install, and subsequently to repair and maintain, equipment in a common utilities trench within all future road allowances, and up to but not interfacing with or connecting to, individual dwelling or commercial building units." Road Cut By-law With amalgamation, the new City of Ottawa had eleven (11) road cut by-laws and twelve administrative processes for tracking, managing and controlling utility cuts in the municipal road rights-of-way. In September 2001, City Council enacted a new harmonized Road Cut By-law, which established a harmonized road cut permit issuance and inspection process. With the establishment of the new Road Cut By-law and a single set of provisions, the challenge of providing permit issuance and inspection services throughout the new City became significantly less complex and more manageable, from the City's, and user's perspective. Road cut management processes and approaches embodied in a Road Cut By-law, are supported by complex analysis and consideration of a number of engineering, legal and financial issues. The term "road cut" generally applies to any surface or sub-surface cut in any part of a highway made by any means, including any excavation, reconstruction, cutting, saw-cutting, overlaying, crack sealing, breaking, boring, jacking or tunnelling operation. The Road Cut By-law deals primarily with the following types of provisions:
In adopting the new Road Cut By-law, Council acknowledged that this was to be considered a Phase I review comprising primarily of the best elements of the existing road cut by-laws and supporting the effective and timely integration of the administrative processes related to permit issuance and inspection. Staff was directed to undertake a more thorough Phase 2 review incorporating best practices and following a thorough review of all technical, legal, and financial issues related to the management of utility cuts and other road related works on the public road rights-of-way. This review is currently underway and it is expected that a revised by-law will be submitted to City Council in mid-2003 which will address setting new permit fees, plan approval fees and pavement degradation fees to enable the City to recover its full costs. Moratorium Policy on Road Cuts The Road Cut By-law continues the moratorium provisions in the former Regional Regulatory Code as applicable to former Regional Roads. The moratorium applies to all utility organizations and prevents the undertaking of utility excavations on any former Regional Road that has been constructed, reconstructed or resurfaced for a period extending three years from the year in which the new road surface has been placed. A moratorium also applies to telecommunications companies in that where telecommunications trench work is carried out no further work is permitted for a period of three years following the year in which the trench work is carried out. Exceptions can be provided where:
The moratorium provisions for telecoms are managed by a polling procedure whereby telecoms are required to poll each other to determine if there are any other telecoms interested in installing cables in the trench at the same time. The administration of moratoriums requires considerable effort and organization and given the focus on the timely integration of permit and inspection services an extension of the roads to which moratoriums currently apply was not included in the proposed By-law provisions. This matter will be dealt with during the Phase 2 review of the Road Cut By-law. Utility Circulation Process For all applications for a road cut permit, except for lateral service connections, the telecom companies are required to submit engineering plans to the City for approval. In addition, to undertaking its own review, other utilities in the ROW are circulated for comment. Should an objection be received from any of the other utility companies concerning the planned work (e.g. a location conflict), the plan approval and road cut permits are held up until the objection is removed. The parties meeting and resolving the conflict usually handle this. Much improvement has been made to the utility circulation process since amalgamation with the initiation of an electronic circulation process and the digitization of many of the City's utility drawings. Public Utility Coordinating Committee The former City of Ottawa established the Ottawa Underground Public Utilities Coordinating Committee (UPUCC) in 1957 to promote cooperation among municipal agencies and the various private and public utilities. Since that time the committee has organized and standardized the placement, details, standards and ideal locations of the various underground utilities within the municipal boundary. As well, the committee was instrumental setting up and maintaining a central registry to record all the existing information available in composite plans for existing underground plant. Membership in the UPUCC is comprised of representatives from all municipal, public and tprivate utilities operating within the limits of the former in the City of Ottawa. The Committee has no legal right or power which would be binding on any party, but rather operates as a voluntary non-statutory authority acting in an advisory capacity as a clearing house of information for the common benefit of its members. The Committee's mandate is to provide comments on pending municipal legislation (e.g. by-laws) and put forward recommendations for consideration by municipal officials. The Committee meets regularly on a monthly basis and at times establishes sub-committees to study and recommend causes of action with respect to matters requiring concentrated and detailed attention. With the amalgamation of the eleven former municipalities and the Region of Ottawa-tCarleton into the new City of Ottawa, the UPUCC is undergoing a transition and restructuring process to integrate and harmonize its mandate and policies to encompass all of the underground utilities within the boundaries of the new city. To assist in this endeavour, in August, 2002, the City of Ottawa, in conjunction with the UPUCC, has initiated a comprehensive review of the organizational model of the existing Ottawa UPUCC for the purposes of developing a new and more up-to-date and effective operating and administrative structure for the utility coordinating committee to bring it in line with the structure and objectives of the new City of Ottawa and the member utility agencies. As well, a review of the existing Ottawa UPUCC Procedure Manual will be undertaken for the purpose of updating its policies and procedures. Telecom Joint Build Initiative In 2000, through the persuasion and efforts of the former Region, a group of telecom companies operating joined together to simultaneously undertake the construction of a fibre optic telecommunications network B r o a d b a n d P l a n for the City of Ottawa Page 72 April 2003 in a common trench in the downtown core and agreed to share in the costs of the joint construction. At the same time, the City of Ottawa (former Region) also elected to participate in the joint build and agreed to share in the costs for having its own ducts installed. The City's interests in installing and owning additional ducts under these important downtown arteries was to protect against any further disruption to its roads by making these extra ducts available to other companies that may wish to install ducts in the future. The original partners in the joint build were 360 Networks, Wispra Networks, GT Group Telecom, Telus, Videotron and the City of Ottawa. Wispra has since dropped out of the project and the ownership of its ducts has subsequently been transferred to the remaining partners. The construction of the joint build was completed in 2001 and in accordance with the terms of the Joint Build Agreement the participants have entered into a Shared Facilities Agreement to provide for terms and conditions pursuant to which facilities, access chambers and the building connection lateral ducts will be accessed, shared and maintained. The Shared Facilities are managed by a Manager appointed by the owners and decisions relating to the facilities are undertaken through a committee ("Shared Facilities Committee") comprised of representatives of the owners of the Shared Facilities. Current City Issues Access to information from the telecom firms has been difficult. Sharing of fibre and co-builds have been difficult to put in place and have any influence by the City. Tower Activity to Date Approximately 3 years ago, City staff met with the carriers to try to encourage co-location of facilities on towers. There has been success with some carriers but resistance from others. Towers have been going up in the City for others without City staff involvement or knowledge except in the case of towers on City land. In that instance, staff will know about the tower installation planned. Currently, there is no mechanism in place for staff to find out of impending installations. Staff feels there is significant benefit in allowing other users on existing towers and the City is willing to do this where technically feasible. In a recent survey responses from carriers were that Cellular carriers indicated they have joint use agreements in place today and where possible use each other's towers. At least one indicated that towers are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada as represented by the Minister of Industry. They recommend that the City use the Industry Canada "Client Procedure Circular" entitled Environmental Process, Radio frequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation-CPC-2-0-03. This CPC summarizes the jurisdictional issue and provides a template for meaningful municipal participation as the supervising landuse authority. Some carriers' charges for space on towers are set at a level that others are discouraged from using available collocation space on towers. This type of pricing discourages the local wireless firms from attempting to offer services in the areas affected. Some firms have taken this position in the past with fees as high as $15,000/year for a tower space. Telecom Ottawa owns 5 towers. One of them is in Osgoode at the library. The tower is on City land and the liability issues around the installation rest with both the City and Telecom Ottawa. The City is currently in control of the tower use. This same position currently applies to the other Telecom Ottawa towers. The application to use the Osgoode tower by a competitive wireless firm took several weeks for approval. In a competitive telecommunications environment, this process is somewhat slow and could be improved with City developed processes and standards. Tower space lease agreements are already in place for several of the City owned/controlled towers. Pricing for the rural initiatives that have taken place has been negotiable. Storm received a fixed fee price with a revenue sharing arrangement with the City should more than "X" customers be served from the North Gower tower. In smaller communities there may be a need for funding to totally eliminate the tower lease cost but the City still needs to have revenue for the tower costs. Summary The current City policies regarding infrastructure are an improvement over past practices, however, there are still concerns among the carriers about timing, administration that is burdensome and costs. Fibre To The Home (FTTH) Some communities throughout the world have been installing Fibre To The Home (FTTH) on a trial, or broader, basis. The following information outlines the advantages and drawbacks to this type of fibre cable initiative. Although the requirements for broadband service are growing at significant rates, fibre optic cabling capacity exceeds what is envisioned today for home uses. Other technologies such as Category 5 or 6 cabling that is typically employed throughout office facilities has the capability to carry broadband services up to 100 Mbps and beyond. In addition, traditional coaxial cable (as used by cable television firms) has the broadband capacity to provide the bandwidth requirements of homeowners. Many municipalities have a desire to be a leader and make high-speed infrastructure and services available to the home. The installation of fibre to the home is based on a concept that the service providers will use it if it is there. As noted above, there are technically feasible alternatives to the installation of fibre to meet this need. The Desired Architecture In theory all service providers would share the neighbourhood fibre runs to the home. The service providers would all meet at a common routing point at the "edge" of the neighbourhood. Problems with this theoretical concept include:
How and When? Industry changes in structure and operational concepts required to make fibre to the home a realistic solution in Canada are unlikely within the next 5 years. Both the competitive telecommunication firms with existing infrastructure in place today and the cable companies will exploit their investments as long as they can, likely another 10 to 15 years. In the meantime, these firms will upgrade the electronics at the edge of the neighbourhood to provide higher speed services. Telecommunication firms will likely employ VDSL or ADSL2 while cable companies will use higher speed modems and wider band network electronics and home modems. It is very difficult to know or forecast how these issues will be resolved. A duct designed to ultimately reach the house from a common neighbourhood point is a universal solution that can be put in place starting today that can be used for the solutions being offered 10 years from now. Developer and Homeowner Costs Costs for developers of residential subdivisions to install a duct system (as proposed in this broadband plan) are approximately $240 per lot15. Adding fibre optic cabling to those ducts increases the cost per lot to approximately $640. For homeowners, the current cost of a fibre modem is approximately $500. Other broadband modems (if required) typically cost approximately $50. Summary of the Considerations for FTTH Broadband services to the home are clearly a requirement in any well-planned and serviced municipality. Those broadband needs can be realised through technologies and systems with much lower costs than a fibre to the home network would entail. Lower costs, while still meeting the service needs of residents in Ottawa, are of benefit to all participants; the developer, the broadband service provider and the home owner. The duct system shown conceptually in Figure 8 allows for the installation of whatever type of broadband infrastructure is chosen while eliminating the requirement to dig up the streets at some future time to install it. Figure 8: Example of Broadband Home Access Topology16
Cable Installation Techniques and Issues The physical signal carrying elements such as copper cables and fibre-optic cables are installed in three typical ways.
These three methods each have their particular issues and costs. Also, the cost of installation of each varies with the instance of installation. If a cable or duct is buried at the time of a road or development build, the costs of each are fairly similar. Aerial installations are generally a build in an already established area so will have costs in relation to the quality and age of the supporting structures (poles). Two new methods to install fibre-optic cables are emerging. These are installing cables in:
Sewer Line Installation Stream Intelligent networks in 2002 had a project approved by the City of Ottawa to install fibre-optic cables in sewers in Ottawa. Unfortunately Stream has since gone bankrupt and their Toronto assets were sold to Videotron. Stream was purported to have held the Canadian license for a European sewer robot for Canada. It is unknown at this time if Videotron bought the license or it has reverted to the technology owner Ka-Te Holdings of Switzerland. Stream had installed with the robots some services in Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario with reported success. CityNet Telecommunications Inc. of Maryland USA has several of these robots and is busily installing fibre-optic cables in several US cities such as Dallas, Houston, Pittsburg, Indianapolis and Albuquerque. The model they are apparently using is that they pull dark fibre via the sewer into buildings or for city street construction and make the dark fibre available to other carriers. The model used in Dallas is that CityNet owns the fibre and pays a franchise fee of 2.5% of their gross revenue as well as an access fee to the city. The following is a direct quote from the Albuquerque press release.
http://www.citynettelecom.com/index.swf Low Pressure Gas Main Installation Another promising technology for retrofitting existing neighbourhoods and buildings is the installation of fibre-optic cables in low-pressure gas mains. Sempra Fibre Links, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy announced the first installation of its proprietary technology that allows fibre-optic cable in live natural gas distribution lines. The new fibre line has been installed in a portion of the service territory of Frontier Energy, a natural gas distribution utility in North Carolina. They also have recently completed a pilot project in Fort Worth Texas. The key to the Sempra technology is the ability to install the fibre, wrapped in a polyethylene conduit, into the gas pipelines without interrupting the energy lines' operation in lengths of 500 to 1,250 feet so cutting into streets is reduced significantly. Sempra have talked to Enbridge about using the technology and had a project targeted to trial the project with Group Telecom. On June 26, 2002 Group Telecom filed for protection under the Companies Creditor Arrangement Act (CCAA) and has recently announced that they have been granted an extension until November 4, 2002 to complete re-organization of the company. Group has also filed to seek a sale or merger of the company. This leaves enough unknowns about the project that Enbridge have put the project on hold. The technology has great promise to expedite the laying of fibre for rings in metropolitan areas and building access when required. This may be a less intrusive way to install fibre reducing the disruption and associated costs of open trenching and cutting the streets. 13 Smart buildings are buildings that have the systems and capabilities to
provide occupants with the option of choosing to use all of the available applications
for communications and lifestyle enhancements. These systems will include all
of the cabling and connections to make these applications possible. |
Official site of the City of Ottawa
