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."

15 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. If the U.S. adopts a "dig once" policy... by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. Municipal/County Fiber by Strider- · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:Municipal/County Fiber by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue with a city competing with an incumbent cable provider is one of contracts.

      Stop confusing Cable and internet. The municipalities are not competing/wanting to compete with Cable TV providers or violate their contracts by laying their own fiber and providing internet.

      The big broadband providers, including cable companies lobbied states to get special laws passed designed to kill the municipal projects.

      The cable provider has a franchise that has all sorts of conditions and requirements

      No: municipalities are only able to do this for Cable TV Service, the franchise agreements don't apply to other services that the municipalities are not empowered to create a monopoly in for the first place. Telecoms that put in and own fibre optics on the other hand are federally regulated and cannot be franchised by a municipality.

    2. Re:Municipal/County Fiber by swb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this is the model that makes the most sense.

      It closely parallels the road system -- government builds the roads, but they don't deploy commercial services on the roads themselves -- ie, they don't get into the taxi business, the delivery business, etc.

      I think it's telling and strange that they complain about this. For one, it says that they are less profitable on actual services delivered over the wire because when faced with competition where pricing is solely determined by content and not delivery.

      Strange, because I would kind of expect that physical plant maintenance would be expensive. I see Comcast trucks all the time, which assume at least some percentage of involve physical plant work. If a city put in municipal fiber Comcast could connect subscribers to, I would expect that they would be thrilled to dump a shitload of plant maintenance overhead.

      And at some point in the future, I would expect both competitors running fiber to the home and signaling limits on coax cable to render coax plants non-competitive, meaning that cable providers are sitting on something of a timebomb of aging infrastructure which will be very costly to upgrade.

      I've often wondered if a smarter strategy for cable providers might not be offering to sell their municipal wire plant (coax to the house plus fiber distribution network) to municipalities. The cable company could spin off an independent plant management company which would actually run the plant -- I would expect any municipal plant to be managed under contract by a private entity anyway. The municipality gets an instant network to homes plus fiber distribution without having to do any construction and the cable company unloads a physical plant which will need a long-term investment to remain viable.

  3. Re:I'll stick with wireless by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  4. OK in Barstow, but ... by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:OK in Barstow, but ... by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

      There is always water in underground conduit. Electrical and communication lines run in underground conduit are required to be sheathed in the same cable jacket as direct burial lines.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:OK in Barstow, but ... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The conduit is capped and sealed as its laid. So there shouldn't be an opening for water to get in. Of course it will get fractures and water will enter it at times but generally if they are laid properly it shouldn't fill with water and if water does get in it will be small in volume. Same for critters. If it's sealing out the water, animals shouldn't get in.

      The pipes they use are also flexible so small amounts of movement wont cause them issues. Fault lines? Do your roads slip that often? If you're roads aren't suddenly slipping 2m then the conduit wont break either. Don't forget it's usually laid as part of the road bed.

      As for freezing that is only an issue if your ground is actually freezing to a fair depth. How are they currently dealing with that issue with your water pipes? Same methodology.

      Laying conduit when laying roads is a solved problem and done in many other countries.

    3. Re:OK in Barstow, but ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any conduit not pulled and sealed within a year or two of laying will be worthless. You typically need a junction/pull box about every 1000'. At each of these access points each conduit needs to be sealed off but very rarely are because the guys pulling the conduits expect the guy pulling the cable through will do it. Even if you seal them up you've still got the issue that because you didn't pull a line through it right when you laid the conduit you don't know if the conduit's got to much variation that will prohibit a pull (you cannot lay this stuff perfectly level and straight, you end up with it going up and down and side to side and if it has too much of that you won't be able to pull a cable due to the friction).

      When you pull the cable during construction you can verify and fix the conduit before you install the asphalt and close it all up. If you wait you have no idea if the conduit is good until someone tries to pull a cable. Rat's or other rodents will build nests, they'll fill with water and sand, etc, etc, etc. After about 3 years without any cable being pulled you won't be able to get a cable through them and the conduit you installed is worthless. It's far better for cities/counties/states to plan these networks out and use them themselves for traffic operation. Locally our DOT puts in 4 or more conduits every time they lay them for their traffic network and the DOT typically only uses 1 or 2 of them. They then rent the extra conduits to companies. Because the DOT pulled a cable through the conduits during installation and the conduits are in a duct arrangement they know the other conduits are good. In addition because they pulled they also sealed up all the other conduits so critters and debris can't plug the conduit.

      I support what the congress critter wants to do but a blanket requirement to install conduits is just dumb, the locals need to be involved and supporting the installation. Forcing a DOT or city to install conduit they themselves won't use is just a plain waste of money,

  5. Re:Yeah, maybe by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're talking about conduit, not actual fiber. You apparently didn't read more than the first two sentences, because those conduits would be empty, but make it easier to run fiber in the future.

    And, IMHO, it's an issue for the states, not the feds. Communications which enables Interstate Commerce is not itself Interstate Commerce.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. Nice Idea in theory by Going_Digital · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Want good Internet? Move to a city. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should city-dwellers subsidize your chosen lifestyle.

    "Dig once" is cheaper, and reduces the need for rural internet subsidies.

  8. Totally not gloating by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  9. Re:Want good Internet? Move to a city. by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should city-dwellers subsidize your chosen lifestyle.

    Because city dwellers need to eat. Or would you prefer farming within city limits?

  10. Re:Why federal law? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?