94598 pushed back 6 months from Dec to June 2024...

Internet access discussion, including Fusion, IP Broadband, and Gigabit Fiber!
47 posts Page 5 of 5
by drbubbles » Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:27 pm
My fiber live date has slipped another year now to Aug 2025, what happened to prompt the change?

Here's a link to the CPUC proceedings for One-touch Make-ready" R1706028:
https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:5 ... T:R1706028

There's a link there to leave a public comment but I'd rather leave a non-public comment if I can. I did email them but haven't received a reply.

Here's the "One-touch Make-ready" requirements document for anyone who is interested:
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/ ... 508263.PDF
by miloseaa » Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:29 pm
dane wrote: Mon Jun 10, 2024 1:13 pm Unfortunately California is one of a small number of "reverse preemption" states, where the local state Public Utilities Commission has chosen to take over regulation of utility poles. So, the CPUC would be the venue. And while they've taken up the issues around one-touch make-ready, they haven't issued a ruling that would compel pole owners to fix unsafe poles in a timely way when new attachers such as Sonic come along. This leaves us setting costly (and somewhat unsightly) temporary safety bypass poles, which remain in place until the pole owner fixes the preexisting safety condition.

But clearly, Cities shouldn't be blocking deployment meanwhile. This is the current process, and while it should be improved by the CPUC, blocking broadband deployment isn't the answer. It's certainly your right as a resident there to voice your concern that the City's blocking deployment is impacting you.

If these issues frustrate you, you could make an informal public comment to the CPUC, letting them know that one touch make-ready isn't working as expected, and deployment of fiber broadband to your home is being blocked or delayed as a result.
Hello Dane,

I signed up for service in Concord back in June 2023. I believe my first estimated installation date was Aug. 2023 which quickly slipped to Dec. 2023. Sadly the estimated date has kept slipping and now I am looking at Dec. 2024.

I started looking for answers which lead me to several posts which seems to indicate that it was the city’s fault for the delays. So out of my frustration I decided to reach out to my councilmember whom quickly referred me to the city manager.

I just received a response and think I realized the sticking point with these needed bypass poles based on your post above and another I am quoting below:
dane wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:05 am <snip> the process is to set a temporary one alongside and that triggers PG&E to ensure that the pole is on their schedule for reinforcement or replacement. <snip>
The bypass pole process seems to indicate the removal of the bypass poles will occur when PG&E replaces the pole. And this just might be the reason why the bypass poles are not being approved. How is PG&E informed about the need to replace them? Do they provide a schedule for the replacement? Has this been communicated with the city?

Valerie Barone, the city manager, stated:
“The City has had problems with cable providers putting up “temporary” bypass poles and then taking no actions or very slow actions to remove the temporary poles. Consequently, the City requires the utilities to confirm the temporary poles are going to be in-place for a year or less—i.e., that they are truly temporary poles. The speed with which Sonic complies with the City’s requirements is up to them, as our staff’s efforts to review their submittals takes only days.“

Not surprisingly the city seems to be throwing this back on Sonic as the issue. However it seems that the really issue is how / when the bypass poles are removed and how that’s being communicated with the city. So based on your post above the issue is either PG&E dragging this out, or a lack of confirmation that these bypass poles will be removed within a year. Can or has Sonic confirmed to the city that the bypass poles will be removed within a year?

I get the frustration of being blocked from installing a bypass poll to provide better services, but I also get Concord’s desire to keep temporary bypass polls temporary, since they really can be an eyesore.

I feel this might all be a miscommunication or really just an issue with the poll owner (PG&E?) dragging either feet. I do plan on writing back the city manager and ask about replacement polls requirements. If a bypass poll is needed for solely for temporary bypass then that should be easy for the city & Sonic to get approved. However if a bypass pole is needed since an existing pole needs replacement, that is a different story and the city should be helping get the existing pole replaced. I also plan on writing the CPUC since they really should have a timeline in place for pole replacement that matches cities’ timeline restrictions for bypass poles.

Hopefully this can help and we can get the delays resolved.

Alex
by dane » Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:11 pm
What triggers PG&E to add the pole to their queue for replacement or repair is Sonic's placement of the temporary safety bypass pole. And we are certainly committed to removal of temporary bypass poles very soon after PG&E has resolved the existing safety issue.

Concord has unfortunately not been willing to allow us to build in the standard way, and it's challenging because we cannot control the timing for PG&E's replacements. They batch a region and accomplish all at once. So delaying our placement doesn't accomplish anything except delaying fiber broadband deployment.

I'd also note that the poles we're talking about are unsafe today - but that isn't being addressed or resolved in a timely way. This creates a potential risk to the public. Allowing us to deploy has the added benefit of causing an already existing safety issue to be addressed in a more timely way.
Dane Jasper
Sonic
by drbubbles » Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:39 pm
Great to hear there's feedback from a city manager, and thanks for the continued effort with this Dane.

Would it be worth providing Valerie Barone with a list of unsafe poles that are holding up expansion in the area so she can liaise with CPUC to highlight the safety issue and prompt PG&E to do the right thing. I imagine the city are aware in general but maybe specific poles would get traction with CPUC? (Especially since the city appear to believe the issue is with bypass pole removal when in fact it's a fundamental safety issue with existing PG&E poles that need to be fixed regardless)
by miloseaa » Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:53 pm
Dane,

Thank you so much for the quick reply! The only thing I still don't understand is if bypass poles are ever used solely as a temporary placement to say span a distance then removed.(?) Or, if they are only installed where a pole already exists but is simply not safe / suitable for additional services.

If it's only the latter, then this is a completely ridiculous policy since no one but the pole owner has control of when it is replaced and therefore when the bypass pole can be removed. I am getting the sense that this is the main purpose of bypass poles, and therefore I feel my councilmember might want / need to hear about this policy and the problems with it. Hopefully I (and other residence) can help put a fire under the city to get this moving faster.

Thank you,

Alex

P.S. On a side note, I was excited after I originally posted because my date moved from Dec. 2024 to Nov. 2024. Then I checked again before I posted tonight and I'm now looking at Mar. 2025. :(
by rpineau » Mon Jul 01, 2024 8:23 am
Well.. as expected my date change from July 2024 to .. August 2024..
This is ridiculous.
The bypass pole is already installed at my location, Sonic has already install the fiber on that pole.
That construction page is useless and only make us angry every time we check it and the date get pushed, month after month (it's been more than 2 years for me now). So at the end of July (aka on august 1st) it will change to September .... and so on ...
It's beyond frustrating at this point as I use this to purchase the (expensive) equipment to be able to take advantage of the 10Gbps speed (router, switches, ...).
Even more infuriating when you look at this from Apr 23rd :
jerrielm wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:29 am @drbubbles - We are looking at June / July timeframe. There are no current delays so its just finishing the work for now
@sheilaf_182 - May is the timeframe we are predicting. Im not seeing any current delays here as well.
@sdnick484 - Several Delays here but it looks like May is our goal right now.
@rpineau - End of may as well. No current delays.

Here is some information i was able to get.
by drbubbles » Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:35 pm
With the bypass pole installed give it a couple of months and you'll be basking in 10Gbps goodness :-)

Not a long time in the grand scheme of things. I'm now Aug '25 with no prospect that that can be adhered to either as it is down to the city and other utilities.
47 posts Page 5 of 5

Who is online

In total there are 8 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 7 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests