Fiber Optic in Bernal Heights

Internet access discussion, including Fusion, IP Broadband, and Gigabit Fiber!
58 posts Page 5 of 6
by leefc01 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:36 pm
Here's a way to contact the Bernal supervisor, Hillary Ronen online

https://sfbos.org/supervisor-ronen-contact
by MovingToBernal » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:59 pm
I noticed that ATT has recently added fiber a few blocks away on Andover St. There are no breaks in the utility poles from Andover to where we are on Crescent Ave. Is there some reason Sonic is unable to service this location still?
by suyashs » Sat May 04, 2019 1:42 pm
I just noticed that a crew was laying fiber along Precita for AT&T... underground (also along Cesar Chavez).
by zero9099 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:17 pm
Just wanted to bump this thread. I live on Shotwell between Precita and Cesar Chavez. Fiber is offered in the Mission but seems unable to cross Cesar Chavez, I assume due to microtrenching issues Dane raised earlier. I called and emailed Hillary Ronen's office and did get an email response:

"One of the initiatives that Supervisor Ronen is leading on is the effort to replace PG&E as our electricity provider with a public utility. We’ve been moving ahead on that, and are excited that it could be a real opening to complete the undergrounding of lines and include fiber lines as well. Not an immediate fix, but something we are looking at to include in transition plans."

While this doesn't help residents in the short term, perhaps this is an opening for Sonic to get things moving on microtrenching legislation? Crossing Cesar Chavez into Bernal could be a good place to test :-) Can I help?
by dane » Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:50 pm
The idea that SF buying PG&E's infrastructure would help with broadband is interesting, but it's a very long shot that'd take a very long time.

Meanwhile, SF should allow modern, trenchless underground construction. I sure hope they decide to do so.
Dane Jasper
CEO
Sonic
by zero9099 » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:38 am
For the record, I asked them if there's any reason it's not possible to allow trenchless underground construction while rolling out the longer-term vision of creating a public utility. The two don't seem mutually exclusive. Haven't heard anything back yet. I'm not expecting much but as our elected officials, I would hope they could provide some reasoning.

If anyone else from Bernal wants to ask as well it may help up the priority. You can fill out the form or call the # listed here: https://sfbos.org/supervisor-ronen-contact

It only takes a minute.
by suyashs » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:30 pm
I emailed Ronan recently and didn't receive a response... should we start a petition and start gathering signatures? What are some next steps to trying to make this happen?
by larns576 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:32 pm
zero9099 wrote:
For the record, I asked them if there's any reason it's not possible to allow trenchless underground construction while rolling out the longer-term vision of creating a public utility.


I believe the SFPUC argued against it a couple years ago saying that microtrenching may damage the utility trenches.

suyashs wrote:
I emailed Ronan recently and didn't receive a response...


Yeah, that's kinda where we're at now. To maintain status quo.
by dane » Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:40 am
larns576 wrote:
zero9099 wrote:
I believe the SFPUC argued against it a couple years ago saying that microtrenching may damage the utility trenches.


I haven't heard what their concerns are, but I did see one city staff member testify that microtrenching could cut existing lines. That's not accurate, because the maximum depth of microtrenching is generally 12-14", whereas all existing utilities are 18" or deeper.
Dane Jasper
CEO
Sonic
by suyashs » Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:39 pm
I finally got a reply from Ronan's office (via Amy Beinart, a legislative aide to the supe) and it was the boilerplate, which is not only inaccurate (microtrenching is very unlikely to harm utilities), it offers no possible path forward:

Thank you for writing. We receive occasional questions about microtrenching. At this point, Public Works is responding with the information below. I am, however, happy to discuss further if you have thoughts in response to what they’re saying. My direct number is below.
~Amy

FROM PUBLIC WORKS
Microtrenching seems like an easy and desirable solution for fiber deployment, but there are numerous issues with the method in a city as old and densely populated as San Francisco. Our sidewalks and streets already contain furniture, trees, utility boxes and vital underground utilities such as sewer, water and gas lines. Adding fiber on top of that would make it more difficult to access existing utilities and subject the fiber network to constant service interruptions and costly damage as other utilities would inevitable damage the shallow trenches.

Our City engineering staff has always advised that microtrenching is not a good fit for San Francisco.
58 posts Page 5 of 6

Who is online

In total there are 14 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 700 on Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:00 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 12 guests