Update on micro-trenching in San Francisco

[catbee]

I'm confused. Are they saying that they believe Sonic must cut trenches deeper than 18" to install fiber safely, or are they saying that there are utilities buried shallower than 12"? Because if it is the former, I think the argument from Sonic is that they can trench 12" safely. If it is the latter, I guess it makes sense they would have to approve things street-by-street.

[capp662]

It sounds like the latter, that's how I read it.

[virtualmike]

It sounds like SF didn't supervise the utilities properly when they were burying their infrastructure.

[rewhite]

I've been trying to find out the current status of microtrenching in San Francisco. I therefore wrote DPW with a cc from the Mayor's Office. To my pleasant surprise I got a response from the latter, forwarding this response from DPW:

--00oo00--

The use of microtrenching was adopted into state law via CA GOV. CODE § 65964.5 in January 2022. The law allows installation of fiber optic cables between 12 inches to 26 inches in depth. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission General Order 128 requires the depth of communication cables and ducts to be a minimum of 18” below the surface.

Due to the state’s updated regulations, Microtrenching has been an available method for telecom fiber installation in San Francisco since last summer. We adopted this Director’s order in July 2023.

Essentially this Directors Order allows applicants to apply for excavation permits for microtrenching. If there are any questions around the specifications referenced, here is 120964 and here is 120965.

I know that telecom companies like Sonic and AT&T are aware of this as well, and deciding to underground their utilities is up to them and whether a given street is a candidate. If the caller is interested in whether their service provider would like to take advantage of this I would advise they contact the service provider directly.

Unfortunately, because of the composition of some streets in San Francisco, there are blocks that may be unavailable for microtrenching. San Francisco’s roadway cross-section is a rigid section comprised of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete on top of 8 to 10 inches of concrete base for a total roadway pavement thickness of 10 to 13 inches.

We do not want fiber optic lines to be embedded in the concrete pavement section where it has a high risk of being damaged when the excavators install or repair/replace their underground utility, and so our standards require a depth of at least 18 inches which may not be achievable on a given block. However, the Public Works Microtrenching Standard does comply with the Government Code and with CPUC General Order 128.

---

Additionally, DPW let us know they and Sonic have active ongoing conversations regarding microtrenching in the street-candidacy process. We hope this information is helpful to you, but please let us know if you have any other concerns or questions.

--00oo00--

Can someone from Sonic update us as to what is going on and if there is a realistic chance of seeing this happening?

Bob White

[emp-12]

Bob:

First of all, we appreciate yours (and other’s) interest in the availability of Sonic’s internet service for your service area. As you have seen in this thread, the issue of building out fiber networks through underground conduit paths or microtrenching can get complicated. To piggy-back on what you were sharing from the Department of Public Works representative in San Francisco, the specifications do allow for a range of depths. I would add that municipalities have discretion under the current rules to agree to alternative specifications under certain circumstances.

However, the key word is “discretion”. As the DPW representative outlined for you, the composition of some of the streets within the city may simply not allow for microtrenching. Furthermore, the issues around microtrenching go beyond the agreed upon depth of the trench, the requirements around restoration can vary and potentially add significant cost to a project. Cities can also impose additional conditions with respect to allowing ISPs in their rights of way for deploying network facilities if they are applying them in a non-discriminatory manner to all providers. From the service provider perspective, there is a junction point where the cost of microtrenching to facilitate the build exceeds the thresholds that we need to maintain to continue to bring our service to customers at the competitive pricing we strive for.

Sonic will explore all feasible options when working with a city (including San Francisco) to deploy our network to provide as many customers as possible access to our suite of services. Unfortunately, in some cases, there is not a solution that can be found that works for both the city and Sonic and we are unable to serve certain areas.

For the sake of candor, currently I am not aware of any recent movement on the issues where Sonic and the City of San Francisco are still apart, but we are continuing these discussions with the city and will remain engaged as long as those discussions remain productive.

- Eli Caul

Director of Customer Care
Sonic.net, Inc

[ddissett]

Hi Eli,

Thank you for sharing the current state of undergrounding in San Francisco.

I’ve been a Fusion DSL customer for years, enduring numerous price hikes. Now, I pay over $80 per month for a DSL line that offers only a measly 100 KB upload and 1 MB download speed. This is especially frustrating considering gigabit service is just a few hundred feet away on the other side of Market Street. I’ve patiently waited for better and cheaper options to become available.

Based on your post, it seems that the likelihood and timeframe for fiber installation in a specific area in San Francisco vary significantly. I’m curious to know more about the obstacles preventing undergrounding in a particular location like mine -- is it possible to get more detailed information? This would help customers like me assess whether our patience will be rewarded or if we’ve been waiting in vain and decide whether to persevere or seek alternative options. Thank you.

daniel dissett
15th Street, Duboce Triangle, San Francisco

[macguyver]

(NOTE: This is a semi-off-topic response to the quotation below.)

I’ve been a Fusion DSL customer for years, enduring numerous price hikes. Now, I pay over $80 per month for a DSL line that offers only a measly 100 KB upload and 1 MB download speed. This is especially frustrating considering gigabit service is just a few hundred feet away on the other side of Market Street. I’ve patiently waited for better and cheaper options to become available. ...

$80 for 1+Mbit? While I am outside SF, I share this frustration. My 6 Mbit Sonic DSL (on AT&T line) started around $40+ and increased twice to end up at $60+ before service was cut off. I understood the Sonic price increases in the interest of helping pay for new infrastructure, but then some of us have been left with out options and it feels a bit like having subsidized another city's improvements. To be fair, Sonic does have to weigh the cost benefit of each installation area or they might begin sliding into the red financially. Building new infrastructure is a complex and fraught process, especially in this state and most especially within the bay area.

That being said, the rising cost of DSL (legacy or otherwise) continues to astound me. Although with AT&T almost nothing surprises me. I had Sonic 6 Mbit Legacy DSL until AT&T sabotaged the infrastructure in this area mid-Covid. For years, AT&T has waged a campaign of obfuscation and disinformation about their copper lines. They continually moan about how expensive it is to maintain (which is true) but then play musical-hardware behind the scenes and falsify reports on what they have or have not done. While I still had service, I often had conversations with reps from AT&T that indicated they were unaware of the service potential of the line on my street, let alone my area, because the company had set a mandate that new service could only be 768K to 1.5 Mbit, despite my own 6 Mbit connection farther down the street on the same Node.

Similarly, AT&T has played this game with customers using POTS for basic phone service, particularly in areas that have no other option (except possibly expensive satellite). After allowing their copper infrastructure to degrade (either by attrition or intentionally), AT&T then announced they want to shut down POTS and be relieved of COLR obligations (Carrier Of Last Resort).

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... ment-plan/

AT&T's brilliant strategy: Get a massive tax windfall, lay off numerous employees, continue building out fiber in certain areas, and cripple or disconnect legacy infrastructure where you don't want to be bothered supporting customers, all while raising prices due to "maintenance costs".

[virtualmike]

CPUC denied AT&T's petition to be relieved of COLR in CA.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-update ... as-carrier

However, AT&T has received permission to do so in many other states, and I'm sure that AT&T hasn't ended its campaign in CA.