Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:31:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <558584981.55.1711625515954@localhost> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_54_1729803409.1711625515953" ------=_Part_54_1729803409.1711625515953 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Starting in the= 2010s, rural communities began looking for less traditional, more cost-eff= ective ways to get broadband services to their communities. Several of thei= r ideas are outline below, including opportunities to coordinate connectivi= ty projects utilizing transportation and infrastructure corridors in Albert= a:
Transmission tower fibre optics, or o= ptical ground wire (OPGW), is located at the topmost position in the high-v= oltage power transmission structures that are distributed throughout Albert= a. This wire is positioned to take advantage of an electric utility=E2=80= =99s transmission right-of-way to transport large amounts of data.
Optical ground wire generally serves = two main purposes:
The data capacity of the OPGW in almo= st all cases greatly exceeds the needs of the transmission facility operato= rs, leaving room for others to make use of the utility as a high-speed fibr= e connection.
Fibre optic cab=
les traverse existing rail rights-of-way. Rail lines are well suited for ho=
using fibre backbones, as the corridors and associated rights of way are ow=
ned by a single entity.
Modern pipelines often employ fibre-o= ptic monitoring systems along the length of the pipeline corridor. Like rai= l lines, pipeline corridors are well suited to hosting fibre backbones, as = the long-range rights-of-way are already negotiated.
In the UK, several rural communities = have championed broadband initiatives by leveraging support from a collecti= ve of volunteers, landowners, farmers, private investors, and government fu= nding sources. These projects include Tove Valley Broadband, = Broad= band for the Rural North Ltd (B4RN) and Fibre for Rural Nottinghamsh= ire (F4RN). The initiatives are dependent on wayleave agreements= between the broadband organization and the farmer/landowner to enable work= to be carried out on their privately owned land. This includes access appr= oval for network installation, maintenance and repair.
Volunteers from the community help wi= th the administration of the project, recruitment of landowners, and even t= he physical labour involved (including digging trenches and laying duct wor= k on the properties). Investor funding for the projects is raised by sellin= g shares in the company (e.g. B4RN, F4RN). Shares are also offered as compe= nsation to landowners169.
This innovative use of community and = funding resources has considerably reduced the cost of fibre deployments in= these areas. For example, B4RN was able to complete its network for a tota= l of =C2=A32.7 million through a mixture of purchased shares (=C2=A31.4 M),= loans (=C2=A31.3 M) and volunteer effort. This represents savings of =C2= =A3800,000 compared to the estimated commercial cost to deploy the fibre ne= twork.
A similar strategy of leveraging loca= l volunteer capacity and farmer / landowner involvement could be considered= for rural Alberta, to reduce the costs of deploying rural broadband networ= ks.
Many of the opportunities outlined ab= ove looked promising in the early 2010s as lower cost solutions, but none h= ave yet been acted on in Alberta. There are several factors that have hinde= red this progress:
169B4RN. Broadband for Rural North Ltd. Acces= sed 14 March 2021.