[1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Broadband in LC

[Gary Gomes]

It seems to me that the concern you cite has a number of solutions.

The simplest "answer" is to state up front that the conduit capacity is fixed and charge on a basis that recoups costs and encourages the highest bandwidth utilization.  If there is concern over the sizing of the conduit, bids for access rights could be solicited before construction. I do want to caveat, however, that I don't think that the state or local governments should be in the business of funding and providing all fiber conduit, but over-time the "as we build roads" element could have substantial impact.

An alternative might be for the governmental entity to invite bids for conduit installation at time of roadway work (when digging costs are minimum) and ongoing maintenance and a requirement to make capacity available on a non-discriminatory bases.

In any event, as you said, there are ways to encourage broadband t other than tax abatement that could provide a bigger bang for the buck.

Gary


-----Original Message-----
From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Gary Gomes
Cc: Nan Rubin; 1st-Mile-NM
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Broadband in LC

Hi Gary,

The challenge that I hear from folks with this idea is that, what happens when that conduit gets full?
Who is responsible for adding more?
Is the .GOV at legal risk because its now not allowing the next new provider to use the conduit because its full, and they (.GOV) doesn't have any money to dig up and put more in.??

Conduit isn't expensive.  Its the cost of digging the trench and getting the RoW.

In the alternative, if .GOV goes to dig, they should tell everyone they are going to dig on x date and that whoever wants to put pipe in the ground should show up with the material.
Each conduit would be owned by that provider.
Some might be smart and put multiple conduits in, others might just put one in.

It would be a great step forward if access to electric poles was FAR EASIER that what it is today.  The senseless time waste is hurting our communities.  Unfortunately the pole owners in this state think differently.

Increasing electric rates because of "higher costs", yet there would be a reduction in costs with more users of poles for fiber.
Hmmmm,  PRC ???

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Gary Gomes <ggomes at soundviewnet.com> wrote:
> I conceptually concur with John.
>
> NM would get much more bang for the buck by facilitating network 
> expansion and competition.
>
> Right-of-way and construction costs are the major barrier to entry and 
> expansion.  I have advocated for almost 10 years that the state and 
> local governments install fiber conduit (not the fiber, just the 
> conduit and access points) while doing roadwork and make it available 
> to broadband network service providers on an open basis.  The 
> incremental costs of including this conduit during road construction 
> would be negligible, but somehow the concept never sees the light of 
> day in New Mexico - to the disadvantage of the populace.
>
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 1st-mile-nm
> [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces+ggomes=soundviewnet.com at mailman.dcn.org] 
> On Behalf Of John Brown
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 2:29 PM
> To: Nan Rubin
> Cc: 1st-Mile-NM
> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Broadband in LC
>
> What would make the most sense isn't so much tax breaks the like, but 
> the ability to remove all the useless red-tape around right way, pole 
> attachment, and other roadblocks.
>
> While Federal Law now says that Broadband providers have a legal right 
> to Pole-Attachment, the actual ability to "get that" in NM is well, 
> umm, a significant challenge and expense.  Some conversations have 
> been going on for nearly a year
>
> Rural Coop electrical providers are not required under federal rules 
> to provide access to their poles.  Thus keeping and creating a further 
> monopoly in those communities.
>
> I suspect if legislators actually got out and spoke with ALL of the 
> various providers, they would learn a great many things and could come 
> away with some meaningful ideas for bills that would truly improve 
> broadband in this state.
>
>
> I've seen proposals that would provide all of the schools in ABQ  free 
> Dark Fiber.....
> For APS that would save an estimated $1.2Million a year in 
> connectivity costs, FOR EVER And allow them to have virtually 
> unlimited bandwidth between all of their schools.
> How many new teachers could that hire ??
>
> I've seen proposals that would provide major health care providers in 
> ABQ free Dark Fiber.....
> Such connectivity would interconnect all of the providers and enhance 
> the quality of healthcare in our City...
> I've seen proposals that would save the City of ABQ nearly $2Million a 
> year in telecom costs, FOR EVER.
>
> I've seen the State of NM put requirements out for RFP's that in the 
> end cost taxpayers 300%or more for telecom costs because the "requirements"
> limit who can bid to 2 or 3 companies.  So DoIT wastes taxpayer money.
> The same basic incumbents that have been over-charging our state for 
> decades.
>
> Hey Gov.  Why is DoIT allowed to waste so much money ??
>
> Can we get a bill introduced that will legislate good common sense and 
> reasoned thinking ?? :)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Nan Rubin <nanrubin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I
>> n
>> the
>> Las Cruces
>> Sun-News toda
>> y.
>>
>>
>> N
>>
>> http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/money/technology/2016/02/08/business-
>> c ould-benefit-pending-broadband-bills/79772564/
>>
>> Nan Rubin
>> Community Media Services
>> 917-656-0886 [Rocky Mountain Time Zone!!!]
>> 4093 Calle de Estrellas
>> Las Cruces, NM  88012
>> www.nanrubin.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>