Slashdot Mirror
'Dig Once' Bill Could Bring Fiber Internet To Much of the US (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: If the U.S. adopts a "dig once" policy, construction workers would install conduits just about any time they build new roads and sidewalks or upgrade existing ones. These conduits are plastic pipes that can house fiber cables. The conduits might be empty when installed, but their presence makes it a lot cheaper and easier to install fiber later, after the road construction is finished. The idea is an old one. U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has been proposing dig once legislation since 2009, and it has widespread support from broadband-focused consumer advocacy groups. It has never made it all the way through Congress, but it has bipartisan backing from lawmakers who often disagree on the most controversial broadband policy questions, such as net neutrality and municipal broadband. It even got a boost from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has frequently clashed with Democrats and consumer advocacy groups over broadband -- her "Internet Freedom Act" would wipe out the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, and she supports state laws that restrict growth of municipal broadband. Blackburn, chair of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, put Eshoo's dig once legislation on the agenda for a hearing she held yesterday on broadband deployment and infrastructure. Blackburn's opening statement (PDF) said that dig once is among the policies she's considering to "facilitate the deployment of communications infrastructure." But her statement did not specifically endorse Eshoo's dig once proposal, which was presented only as a discussion draft with no vote scheduled. The subcommittee also considered a discussion draft that would "creat[e] an inventory of federal assets that can be used to attach or install broadband infrastructure." Dig once legislation received specific support from Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who said that he is "glad to see Ms. Eshoo's 'Dig Once' bill has made a return this Congress. I think that this is smart policy and will help spur broadband deployment across the country."
..In new construction or total replacement of old roads
Most existing areas, especially rural, still can't get good internet
Misleading headline. Saying "Dig Once Bill Could Bring Fiber..." implies that there is currently a bill undergoing consideration. The article says that the same guy has been proposing it over and over for 8 years.
You could also say "If US Politicians stopped being twats, it could bring internet to people." Or "If people stopped killing people, the world would be better." Or ...you get the picture.
Or, you know, you could just eliminate the laws that prohibit/restrict Municipal and/or County fiber projects. Two counties I know have PUDs that have deployed fiber to pretty much every address also serviced by their power connection. Residents then have the option to choose Internet service from several different providers (Zayo and Level 3 will also do transit over it), and TV service from several providers, and it's all very reasonably priced and reliable.
Of course, the big boys (Verizon et al) Hate it, because it dramatically lowers the bar to their competition.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
LTE is fast enough for me.
Nobody complains about LTE speeds. Everybody complains about LTE data caps.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Anyone around here here have any practical experience with long runs of conduit in rural areas? I'm all in favor of it if it works. But how do you keep the conduit from filling up with water ... at least in places where it rains now and then? And what happens when that water freezes and expands? And is there a problem with critters homesteading in the pipe? And sediment? And what happens where it crosses active slip-strike fault lines? In other words -- What could possibly go wrong?
Also, shouldn't this be a state and local thing, not a federal government thing? I have no problem with the feds doing the R&D and laying out best practices. But if the Feds pay for this, they'll probably have the entire country including every swamp in Florida and dry lake in the Mojave conduited with mil-spec pipes and full time inspectors and mandatory 20 year replacement cycles. While it's probably a better investment than 22 goddamn aircraft carriers, Or the planned massive rollout of overpriced and underperforming F-35 aircraft, I'm not sure it should be that high on our list of national priorities.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
First i fail to understand why any honest politician would not want broadband everywhere for all people to use. Next make that pipe large enough so that numerous competing companies can offer broadband services thus causing competition and that should drive prices downward. As far as free, municipal access that would be wonderful and bring many poor neighborhoods into the modern world. The basic idea is to protect the public from wallet vampires who seek endless paths to extract money from the public.
but who owns the ducts and what if the comms companies don't want to pay the price to use them and would rather lay their own. Are they forced to pay the monopoly rates?
Why should city-dwellers subsidize your chosen lifestyle.
"Dig once" is cheaper, and reduces the need for rural internet subsidies.
Norway
Mean: 47 Mbit
Median: 27.7 Mbit
People <4 Mbit: 3.9%
People <1 Mbit: 0.5%
People who can't get fiber: 54%
People who can't get 100/10 Mbit: 22%
People who can't get 4 Mbit on a fixed connection: 5%
People who can't get 10 Mbit LTE outdoor w/antenna: 0.06%
I thought maybe the fiber rollout would slow down, but the last stats indicate a speed up going from 41% to 46% in last year. Next year it seems likely a majority of the population can get fiber.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why should city-dwellers subsidize your chosen lifestyle.
Because city dwellers need to eat. Or would you prefer farming within city limits?
Speculation: because the local governments have already signed their souls over. If they can't install municipal broadband due to their current agreements, there is little incentive for them to install conduit that they can't use. And why run the conduit for Comcast or Verizon, who has possibly already been paid to do the job and neglected to do so?
The feds dictate standards for Interstates for sure. And I assume they have some control over standards for US highway construction. State and local roads? Maybe if they provide any of the funding? But mostly not?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Bullshit. 2010 (most recent year for which I could find hard figures) Per capita Federal funding: Metro $10,976, Nonmetro $10,293. And those figures include retirement/disability benefits. Not surprising that category has the highest expenditures in rural areas classified as "Retirement Destinations." I submit that category should be excluded - if someone moved between urban and rural areas, those payments would move with them - they're associated with individuals, not location. Excluding that single category, Per capita Federal funding: Metro $8,171, Nonmetro $6,773.
And don't bother with your crap about artificial taxes and subsidies - those are economic and also occur in the industries which support urban incomes. Crop subsidies are skewed one way, defense spending (which is much greater) is skewed the other. All considered, the facts show your claim is wrong.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Indoor farms aren't suitable for things like growing wheat for bread, which requires huge expanses of land. The capital expenses for covering thousands of square miles with greenhouses would be enormous, and environmentalists would have fits.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate