Field work that shaped how we advise

These are the kinds of assignments that pushed us toward a practical method: walk the site, measure what exists, and only then draw the network. Each case below started with a municipality, cooperative, or operator that had a clear intention but no comparable technical base.

Site assessment

Three candidate plots, one viable edge node

We compared substation capacity, vehicle access, and distance to the trunk fiber before any topographic survey was ordered.

Capacity modeling

A ring sized for five years, not for the launch

Subscriber counts and peak traffic per segment set the active strand count. Empty ducts were left where growth was likely.

Technical dossier

A file the council could actually review

Memorandum, network design, permits, and phased schedule in four blocks, with assumptions flagged for the committee.

Civil works

Aligning trenching with the urban plan

Duct routes were matched to scheduled street works so the cooperative did not open the same pavement twice.

Commissioning

First service ring brought into operation

Acceptance tests, labeling, and handover notes so the operator's own team could run the ring without us on site.

Permits

Untangling easements before construction

Land tenure and right-of-way questions were resolved on paper first, which kept the field crew from stalling mid-route.

Who we are, and why we work between the plan and the trench

InfraFund Co started because connectivity projects kept stalling in the same place: a good intention on paper, no dossier a council could actually approve. We are engineers and urban planners who got tired of watching fiber routes and edge nodes wait on missing capacity models and unclear site data.

We work with municipalities, cooperatives, and local operators. The people we sit next to are IT leads, planning departments, and works supervisors who need numbers they can defend in a committee room, not a strategy deck.

What we actually do

Field surveys with coordinates, tenure status, and power availability noted per site.
Node sizing and capacity modeling tied to current subscribers and five-year peaks.
Civil works permitting, servitudes, and the paperwork that usually delays trenching.
Technical dossiers structured for council and committee review, with assumptions stated openly.

Practical over abstract

If a route cannot be permitted or a site cannot carry backup power, we say so early. Better to redraw a ring than to halt a build.

Phased by default

First service ring before full coverage. Ducts left empty for the expansion nobody budgets for in year one.

Plain language

Reports written for planning staff and works crews, not for a pitch. Risks named, gaps flagged, next steps listed.

The gap we keep closing

Urban planning and network design rarely speak the same language. One side draws growth corridors, the other sizes optical budgets. We translate between them, then hand over a dossier that both can sign off on. That is the whole story, and it is why we stay close to the field.

Who we build alongside

Most of our work moves through public committees, cooperative boards and utility planning offices. These are the kinds of organizations that have trusted the field surveys, capacity models and technical dossiers we prepare before a single trench is opened.

Municipal planning offices

Urban planning teams that need node locations, right-of-way notes and civil works scopes aligned with the cadastre before a council vote.

Regional cooperatives

Member-owned operators sizing a first fiber ring, weighing active strands against duct space reserved for later phases.

Local network operators

Teams extending coverage into secondary towns, where power availability and access roads decide whether an edge site is worth pursuing.

Civil works contractors

Builders who receive our trenching specifications, cabinet pad drawings and phasing schedules so field crews and network design stay in step.

Public utilities

Power and water providers coordinating shared corridors, substation capacity checks and backup supply for edge equipment.

Development agencies

Regional bodies reviewing connectivity programs, asking for demand projections and risk notes they can defend in public session.

Names and references are shared with each client's written consent. If you want to speak with a team we have worked with in a similar setting, we can arrange that during the preliminary evaluation.

Why InfraFund Co exists

Connectivity projects rarely stall because the technology is unknown. They stall because the technical file is incomplete, the node sizing is guesswork, and nobody mapped the civil works before the committee meeting. We started this firm to close that gap.

Our work sits between urban planning and construction: field surveys, capacity models, equipment specifications, and phased schedules that a council or cooperative board can actually review and approve.

Field evidence over assumptions

Every site gets coordinates, power availability notes, access conditions, and tenure status. If a substation cannot carry the load, we say so before the topographic survey is commissioned.

Sizing that survives scrutiny

Capacity models start from current subscribers, five-year projections, and peak traffic per segment. That is how we decide active fiber counts and where to leave empty ducts for later.

Documents committees can read

Memory, drawings, permits, and budget by annual period, ordered the way a council reviews them. Missing annexes and mismatched drawings are the usual reasons a file gets returned.

Phased, not all at once

We split deployment into verifiable milestones so a cooperative or municipality can fund the first service ring, prove adoption, and continue without committing full civil works upfront.

The expected effect for a client is straightforward: fewer returned files, fewer redesigns after excavation starts, and a deployment sequence that matches what the budget can actually absorb each year.