The document discusses College Station's next generation broadband initiative and fiber optic infrastructure. It notes that in April 2013, the city approved $25,000 to support the effort. It also describes the city's existing 170 miles of fiber optic cable. The document considers designating fiber as basic infrastructure and leasing unused fiber or conduit to private entities. It lists pros and cons of these options, such as potential cost savings but also increased construction costs or responsibility for maintenance.

1. October 24, 2013

2. 



Jan 24 Workshop - Gig.U Executive Director Blair
Levin addressed Council about the Gig.U initiative
and why bandwidth was needed.
April – RVTC formed under the RVP to coordinate
and guide the initiative.
April 25th Council Meeting, Consent item 2.b was
approved to amend College Station’s Funding
Agreement with the RVP to add the $25,000 for the
next generation bandwidth effort.
Oct 15th – RFI issued by the RVP

3. The City owns and maintains over 170 miles of
fiber optic cable that is used to provide
connectivity to and between city facilities and
equipment.

4. 


Consider the installation of fiber optic cable as
basic infrastructure
Consider making available for possible
lease/rent to private entities city installed fiber
optic conduit that contains inner duct that is
not used or held in reserve by the city.
Consider making available for possible
lease/rent by private entities dark fiber that is
not held in reserve by the city.

5. 
Should fiber optic cable be considered basic infrastructure,
similar to water, electric and sewer during the construction or
major rehabilitation of roadways*
 Pros
 Fiber and related infrastructure installed early and included in
initial project planning – prevents having to install “after the fact”
 Potential cost savings

Cons
 Installed infrastructure may not be used for substantial period of
time
 Will significantly increase construction costs by increasing scope
(Past project info: Tauber/Stasney cost $20.51/ft, Royder Rd cost
~$25/ft)
*four lane major arterial or higher

6. 
This option would make available to private
entities installed city fiber optic conduit that
contains inner duct that is not used or held in
reserve by the city. Two locations, 1) Texas
Ave: Harvey Mitchell – City Hall, 2) Harvey
Mitchell: Holleman Dr – Sandy Point

Pros
 Possible revenue source
 Attractive to private entities as cost savings and
immediate availability

Cons
 City becomes a service provider responsible for
restoration and repair (Specific service levels would be
addressed in contract documents).

7. 
This option would make available to private
entities installed city fiber optic cable fiber
strands
 Pros
 Possible revenue source
 Attractive to private entities as cost savings

Cons
 City becomes a service provider responsible for
restoration and repair (Specific service levels
would be addressed in contract documents.)
 Additional resources may be needed.
 Private strands would have to be broken off and
not run through secure facilities