do you know of any CLECs who have either RT cole'ed already, or who have announced intentions to?
No and no. I know of no Pronto RT that is presently operational, but that does not mean that's not the case. Hence, I know of no CLEC that has co-loc'd at an RT. I know of no CLEC that has OFFICIALLY announced intention to do, but, FWIW (& its not much), two ISPs I have spoken to, one delivering access over COVD, the other over NPNT, have represented to me that each respective CLEC intends to provision pairs out of Pronto RTs. But again, such representations, IMHO, are highly suspect, & hencee would not lend any credence thereto.
It also occurs to me that a CLEC could lease optical capacity from others, or erect a microwave tower in the same vicinity or immediately adjacent (or on top of) the RT, thus further de-coupling the situation from the ILEC's cost recovery model. What does that do?
Hmmm. Pretty interesting "mindblasting," Frank. My response is (1) I would think that the CLEC would have no problem leasing optical capacity in the fiber but (2) there would be rather significant land use concerns, public and private, to overcome before the right to install such a structure at or near the RT site would be granted.
Many Pronto RTs are being located on private property whereby the right to construct and operate an RT is created by the grant of an easement upon private property. Consequently, it is likely that the rights granted are limited to construction of an underground CEV, coupled with the right of access for regular operation & maintenance. The right to construct an above ground structure such as a MW tower would necessarily be excluded from the scope of such easement.
Nowithstanding private land use concerns, the desire to construct an above ground structure would involve local governmental controls such as zoning and both State and Federal environmental impact review. Such hurdles, IMHO, would place a severe damper on the economics of such deployment, since they would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, require much lead time, and consume many hours and fees paid to lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, etc. necessary to obtain such approvals.
Bottom line, in theory, your idea works, but in practice, at this point at least, is politically impractical. Perhaps when MMDS technology arrives, when & if we begin to see ground swelling movement to install wireless transmitters in the neighborhoods would such a strategy begin to make sense. But then again, I think the introduction of such structures are most likely to appear first in public, not private, ROWs.
As I alluded in one message elsewhere, with respect to overbuilders such as RCN, that are encountering the typical political issues attendant to the grant of easements along city ROWs to lay fiber & coax, that at some point, instead of laying coax, the economics will dictate the introduction of MMDS technology. But I think we're at least a year or two away from such deployment.
JMO.
PS No, this isn't a test, just an invitation to do some mindblasting.
No this isn't a test of the FAC emergency broadcasting system? LOL. |
