[ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern

Fri Apr 22 13:09:26 CDT 2022

Mike --

Sorry I missed the Thursday call, too much day work. Please see attached
the City of Boston joint build policy and our master lead company
agreement, which answer some of your questions:

1. The fiber and microtrenching must be maintained and replaced by the
providers
2. The providers must maintain the public rights of way within which the
microtrenching are installed.

It may not be a good idea to use microtrenching so much since the snow
plowing can easily damage the small conduits, we often advise the providers
of those risk and point out the traditional trenching, which is slower and
more expensive but more durable.  After microtrenching is quick and easy.
I will. pay attention to trench that run normally 6-12'' from the surface,
however that vary dependent upon the road condition and underground
configuration.

Chong

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:51 PM Watza, Michael J. <mike.watza at kitch.com>
wrote:

> The project here had a very republican city gaga over "free". Then the
> installer charges for access. No price control or service standards. 
>
>
> Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blackberry.com&d=DwQF-g&c=jHPlKdF3zLuO12CD8lDt5g&r=SxQ571uBPzA5hYmJRYBtbZfABj6VTBzwIzrXb1oFhAU&m=Izz9rw597l0YJ4keNgEDqt7Yol6CBj8vlReFnbDG5cC2hJjLTDzwFWESapuD0tzF&s=nziA1Qtygcg6h7sdTAUCD3Jm4RYyXLUQpwJX39BJM9c&e=>
> )
> ------------------------------
> *From: *ROW <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org> on behalf of Nancy Werner <
> NWerner at natoa.org>
> *Sent: *Apr 22, 2022 12:12 PM
> *To: *ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject: *Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
> Thanks, Mike!  This is really interesting.  I had not thought about your
> point 2 and how the shallow placement of the fiber could mean it has to be
> replaced when the road is replaced.  The study seems to say that even more
> routine surface work could impact shallow trenches.  Hopefully these risks
> are being addressed prior to any micro-trenching so there are no issues
> down the road (pun intended!) when road replacement/maintenance damages or
> requires reinstallation of the fiber.
>
>
>
> *From:* ROW <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org> *On Behalf Of *Watza, Michael J.
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:07 PM
> *To:* ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
>
>
> https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2016-0043
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facetsjournal.com_doi_10.1139_facets-2D2016-2D0043&d=DwMF-g&c=jHPlKdF3zLuO12CD8lDt5g&r=SxQ571uBPzA5hYmJRYBtbZfABj6VTBzwIzrXb1oFhAU&m=Izz9rw597l0YJ4keNgEDqt7Yol6CBj8vlReFnbDG5cC2hJjLTDzwFWESapuD0tzF&s=4Py8sqCYRXRc6Hqd4sKrrkSscR9qos6ykzNZbA-_YSQ&e=>
>
>
> Here is a 2017 micro-trenching study conducted in an Alberta, Can. parking
> lot which offers some interesting insights.
>
>
>
> My concerns include:
>
>    1. The impact of these cuts as further weaknesses to our roads already
>    subjected to harsh weather driven freeze-thaw and heaving cycles.
>    2. Northern communities also tend to replace our roads more frequently
>    than warmer climates for those same reasons. So what happens when a road is
>    replaced or heavily re-worked every 20 years? Does the fiber have to be
>    replaced when the life of the fiber should be virtually unlimited? Who
>    funds that replacement?
>    3. Because the micro-trench is very narrow by definition, it seems
>    likely that the quantity of strands in such a project may be substantially
>    fewer than a traditional installation which could leave a fiber project
>    inadequate to meet future needs?
>    4. Ownership of the Fiber. Assuming we don’t want multiple cuts into
>    our roads, how do we address subsequent competitors seeking access?
>    5. Etc.
>
>
>
> A community here in SE Michigan is doing a microtrenching project as we
> speak, so I may have more direct experience in the next couple years.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* ROW [mailto:row-bounces at lists.natoa.org
> <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Werner
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:14 PM
> *To:* ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
>
>
> Thanks, Alice.  Let’s hold the call for those of you who can make it.
> Again, sorry for the late notice.
>
>
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> *From:* ROW <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org> *On Behalf Of *Lawson, Alice
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 11:56 AM
> *To:* ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
>
>
> I’d offer these three items:
>
>
>
>    - Portland new proposed ROW Code
>       - If anyone from Portland is able to attend today, it would be
>       great to hear a status update on their process to institute a new ROW Code
>       to standardize/unify code requirements for all utilities using
>       infrastructure in ROW.
>    - Microtrenching discussion
>       - Insights from anyone allowing use of *Microtrenching* for fiber
>       deployments in ROW.
>       - Insights from those getting increasing pressure from telecoms to
>       allow use of microtrenching in ROW
>    - FCC Second NPRM: Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by
>    Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (WC Docket No. 17-84) “*Resolving
>    Pole Replacement Disputes”. *Plans for comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alice
>
>
>
> *From:* ROW <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org> *On Behalf Of *Nancy Werner
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 08:31 AM
> *To:* ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: External Email*
>
> Hi Jodie!  Today is the day for the call.  I have been out of the office
> so I apologize for not getting an email out to solicit topics.  Does anyone
> have anything to discuss today?
>
>
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> *From:* ROW <row-bounces at lists.natoa.org> *On Behalf Of *Jodie Miller
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 11:24 AM
> *To:* ROW at lists.natoa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ROW] Call This Thursday at 2 pm Eastern
>
>
>
> Hi, all,
>
> Do we have a Rights-of-Way Forum call today?
>
> Jodie Miller
> --
> ROW mailing list
> ROW at lists.natoa.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.natoa.org_mailman_listinfo_row-5Flists.natoa.org&d=DwICAg&c=jHPlKdF3zLuO12CD8lDt5g&r=SxQ571uBPzA5hYmJRYBtbZfABj6VTBzwIzrXb1oFhAU&m=Izz9rw597l0YJ4keNgEDqt7Yol6CBj8vlReFnbDG5cC2hJjLTDzwFWESapuD0tzF&s=xKOFEkDeNnaFmVsnIYnX9kVK2S7A4R8q1vvSCw-52WU&e=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natoa.org/pipermail/row_lists.natoa.org/attachments/20220422/16d0034b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PIC Joint Build Policy of 1994_001.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 592600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natoa.org/pipermail/row_lists.natoa.org/attachments/20220422/16d0034b/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised Lightower Master Lead LMI Oct 31, 2017.rtf
Type: text/rtf
Size: 175328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natoa.org/pipermail/row_lists.natoa.org/attachments/20220422/16d0034b/attachment-0001.bin>