Ben,
To some degree, inter-utility coordination with government already exists, primarily in theaters of new construction such as subdivisions, where state and local zoning authorities set the franchises and lay down the guidelines for utilities and other builders. Likewise, new bridges and transportation tunnels usually have some level of raceway construction included in them for banks of conduits used to house both electrical and communications cables.
My earlier suggestion in this regard was a principle that is as American as Apple Pie. Unfortunately this principle is apparently used only in situations that would result in embarrassment and other forms of liability if not properly taken. Such as, the WTC designs I cited earlier, going back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, and some of the wildcat fiber trenching adventures that were undertaken during the late 1990s. More on this in a few moments.
Re: “Meanwhile, we will find out that the switchbacks have a purpose to the gas transportation system.”
Through no fault of your own, you’ve missed an important point here, IMO. I didn’t go into sufficient detail earlier, so this one’s on me. When I interviewed the optical group of the Northeast’s largest gas supplier I found all of their reasons for not adopting the specific design of Sempra’s Fiber-In-Gas (FIG) technique to be valid and well thought out. But one shouldn’t assume that because they rejected one design that I was recommending placing fiber inside gas pipes. Whether such an application is viable or not remains a function of the individual network design that is employed by the gas company in question.
That having been said, my referenced Northeast gas company’s aversion to using the FIG approach hasn’t dampened their ambition to become the largest independent supplier of fiber optic routes to transatlantic cable operators on the East Coast. It was precisely through the use of leveraging their existing gas routes, and sometimes engaging in new dual-purpose builds, that they were able to achieve this without entering gas-bearing pipes. While this company may very well be considered an outlier of sorts with respect to building fiber routes on this scale and for such an unrelated customer base, they nonetheless actually adhered to the same principles I brought up earlier in this discussion. Con Ed did this, as well, over their electric power routes. Whether any of these entities ever becomes a thriving business is another matter altogether, subject to the same grueling and unforgiving characteristics that befall anyone who dares to get into this game today. My only purpose in mentioning them is to cite examples.
Re: ”Or maybe there is value in having a separation of infrastructure in emergencies so that one event doesn't take down our entire infrastructure”.
No doubt, sure there’s value in route diversity. And different regions and localities will be exposed to different forms and varying levels of risk. Your points concerning the dual risks faced by combining communications and gas tend to exclude the possibility that some configurations would actually work rather well, by assuming that, again, in every case fibers will be placed inside of pipelines. This was never my intended message. My anecdotal reference to Sempra’s FIG was just that: anecdotal, citing why it wasn’t desirable to a particular operator.
Actually, when I interviewed the chief engineer of the gas outfit I was mildly surprised by some of his answers. I presumed, going in, that their first objections to FIG would be safety issues surrounding the logistics and mechanics of modifying valves and other fixtures. Neither of those even came into the running. The main reasons had to do with the stringent compliance criteria of fiber bending radii, and, as you yourself have suggested in a way, the asynchronous timing associated with maintenance functions.
Re: ”If we want the Federal government to take on this responsibility, then I think someone should put out the effort to have a constitutional amendment drafted. Until then, it is, and in my opinion, should be, moot.”
I disagree. I have more than once sat my desk and held transparencies of a half-dozen or more national fiber-optic routes placed on top of each other only to find that some of them are identical to each other, and the remaining ones criss-cross one another and all of the above where they don’t directly overlap. I remember being in a network control center this one day during the 1980s when a train derailment outside of Chicago took down five IXCs, including three of the big four, at the time, and a myriad of local and regional services that sent trading activity between NY and Chicago into a tailspin until folks got a handle on matters. Those carriers all occupied the same easement along a railroad track, and all of them bit the dust for at least two days following,
The best that I can surmise is that here we had a situation where a dozen or more privately-run fiber-optic based telecom operators selected the same route, indeed the same trench, and they did this without governmental influence. But we don’t have to go back to the Eighties. Several years ago, and I’m sure Grace will recall this one quite well, a tunnel fire occurred in the vicinity of Baltimore, knocking out a number of Eastern Seaboard businesses and a couple of carriers, who, themselves, didn’t have alternate routes in place. Again, those privately run telecom operators were able to achieve this height with no help from a government agency.
If a government-affiliated agency like the FAA’s Air Traffic Control Division had had a hand in either of the fiascos I mentioned, those matters probably would still be under intense review. Should the government “dictate” where fibers “should” be run? Obviously, this is not the case. But to the degree that inter-organizational functions work, like the ATIS functions supposedly do –although, ATIS stops short of fulfilling some of the infrastructure oversight I’ve suggested here - then taking a more intelligent approach in addressing this sort of thing makes eminently more sense than everyone shooting blindly from the hip.
I don’t favor a draconian shift to government controls over anything. I’ve been a development stage founder of both a metro fiber carrier (1990-1) and a VoIP venture (1996-8), which should say something about my regard for private entrepreneurship and my often loathing of undue government intervention into the affairs of private businesses. But I’m also a network architect who understands what most architects understand, especially when it comes to laying down a foundation in sometimes uncharted waters. And sometimes, even the best of the natural architects on the market need to hear these things.
FAC |
