[zw123456]

My favorite smart ass response when someone asks me what dark fiber is: Evil Fiber

But seriously, it is just a term of art, when one carrier sub-leases fiber without any terminating equipment and they provide their own equipment to light the fiber. It is "dark" from the standpoint of the provider, they are not "lighting" it. The customer is. Typically the fiber is leased using something called an IRU indefeasible right to use. Basically "condo-ised" fiber.

[rstat1]

At least "dark fiber" isn't a complete lie, like some other tech terms are (Looking at you "serverless")

[Frost1x]

Don't forget the "dark" web, wharever that means anymore. These terms are great for marketing groups to paint an image but often very quickly lose any technical relationships they once had.

[Jenk]

Serverless is from the notion that you are not concerned with the server. I.e., that your product/ infrastructure inventory is... Serverless.

[exikyut]

Ooooooh. I thought "dark" was some weird domain-specific nomenclature to describe "not available on the open market", with the open market being like a transport network of (lit up) lines, and dark = not lit up = not on the open market.

Now I actually understand the definition I'd say "unlit fiber" feels like a better-resolved way of putting it, although I could see the uninitiated imagining that describing a service that needed an additional subscription on top or something, which isn't quite the right nuance.