Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

instantcoffee69 t1_j63b1ex wrote

> Such unilateral control could jeopardize the city’s stated goal of using the conduits to provide broadband access to all city residents. >Six million dollars of American Rescue Plan funds were set aside to route fiber to 23 recreation centers and create 100 Wi-Fi hot spots.

Is the city actually going to do this? I mean, has any work been contracted in support of this? And if this is the main reason, add it as a contract requirement, that's an extremely easy fix via contract management. BS argument.

Not saying this is right or wrong overall, just saying this is not the norm when it comes to conduit install in a city. The current system sucks. I don't see how keeping statue quo will make it better.

10

Dontaskmeaboutnam t1_j63r3rn wrote

You can’t unsell the conduit and it’s ridiculously expensive to install. It’s very shortsighted for the City to sell.

13

Matt3989 t1_j63v1tj wrote

I agree with the first part, but I wouldn't say that it's ridiculously expensive to install conduit. Not in the days of Horizontal Directional Drilling.

5

istayquiet t1_j64ccfl wrote

FWIW, directional boring is currently not permitted in Baltimore City (and neither is micro trenching, which would be a game changer for fiber-to-the-home service here).

5

DrJungeyBrungenMD t1_j66d1q7 wrote

Why is microtrenching not permitted? I’m sure there are plenty of ISPs that would love to move in here

1

istayquiet t1_j66hwqm wrote

Great question! My best guess (based on years of work in this industry) is that Baltimore City’s legal department can’t figure out how to legally permit microtrenching, so it’s one of those back-burner things that will never progress beyond “wow, other medium and large-sized cities do this and it’s great for all involved, but we should keep studying it indefinitely [and spend taxpayer dollars to commission a report from a preferred contractor that will result in nothing]”.

2

instantcoffee69 t1_j63tbmk wrote

Yea that's again easily fixable through contact control and permitting.

Contact includes a clause saying BGE must leave space for city fiber.

And when each new conduit is build, in the permit process, the city requires space for the said fiber conduit. If it's not shown on the permit submission, it's rejected.

Every other city has does it differently besides Baltimore. I love Baltimore city with all my heart. But I can say, i don't think Baltimore is the only one who knows this some secret of owning conduit is some genius stroke.

3

todareistobmore t1_j64tj35 wrote

This isn't selling the conduit, it's more like setting up an escrow account. The city would still have the right to terminate the agreement and resume full control of the conduit system before any renewal.

3

jabbadarth t1_j63j86c wrote

More importantly, based on how the city handles water does anyone believe they can manage a broadband network?

4

istayquiet t1_j64cyit wrote

Absolutely not. And current conduit division billing issues make water billing look like a well-oiled machine.

4

Interstate8 t1_j64i9ea wrote

I think the plan is for the city to just own the fiber infrastructure and lease it to ISPs.

2