5 ms·

I think we need to make it a lot cheaper to run cables like this: I don't understand why we have to dig up roads to lay cables. Why can't there be a shared cond

I think we need to make it a lot cheaper to run cables like this: I don't understand why we have to dig up roads to lay cables. Why can't there be a shared conduit for cables underneath or beside a road? It can be included in the initial construction of the road, for example.

monocasa 6y ago
> I don't understand why we have to dig up roads to lay cables. Why can't there be a shared conduit for cables underneath or beside a road? Because the city doesn't want to pay for it. And the companies, having the money to dig the road up don't want to make their competitor's jobs easier. So pretty classic market failure. What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that. Then the ISPs pay the city for use of the last mile on a endpoint by endpoint basis. Lowers the barrier for new ISPs since they don't have to dig up new last mile, and the city is encouraged to upkeep the last mile since it's a revenue stream with a few high paying representatives of customers (so no tragedy of the commons), but the low barrier to entry for ISPs means that the city won't get too connected to individual ISPs.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Okay but who is going to do that? My county is still working on bringing water and sewer to most places, and I’m less than 10 minutes outside Annapolis. Especially places that already have cable or fiber that was privately installed?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    When there's a clear revenue source coming out of it, bonds make sense to pay for it. And yeah, if you're in barely first world conditions where you're struggling to hook sewer up to your residents near a major municipality, you obviously have systemic issues that get in the way of proper utility work of nearly any scale.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      20% of the country doesn’t have public water or sewer, including many fairly wealth areas. In vastly more of the country, existing water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement. Sure, you can pass bonds, but how do you get people to vote for those bonds when you also need to issue bonds for all this other higher priority infrastructure?
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > 20% of the country doesn’t have public water or sewer, including many fairly wealth areas Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way). > In vastly more of the country, existing water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement. Yes, the united states is devolving into a third world country when it comes to infrastructure. My scheme is obviously predicated on not being in one of the municipalities that are actively trying to run the concept of government into the ground. > Sure, you can pass bonds, but how do you get people to vote for those bonds when you also need to issue bonds for all this other higher priority infrastructure? So you don't get to have works like this until you have the basics of potable water covered. Like for real, 10 minutes outside of Annapolis should be able to have sewer covered.
        db48x 6y ago
        That's probably a misunderstanding. There are plenty of places that don't have public water, but that do have abundant potable water. It's just coming from a nearby well rather than a water treatment plant. Same with the sewer; they've got private septic systems rather than a public sewer system. This type of distributed infrastructure is less costly and more resilient than public water and sewer systems, though it's not suitable for cities or even suburbs.
        monocasa 6y ago
        I understand that, I have a house on a well. That bit is covered by my first response: > Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way). The part you seem to take issue with is the part where I think I had reduced the subset to people who have an issue getting current infrastructure, probably because it hasn't been maintained properly (thinking of flint like situations). I'm admitting that there are cases where they have bigger utility issues and systemic problems managing those utilities, and probably don't have the bandwidth to deal with a new one.
  - chrishacken 6y ago
    Are you in Hartford County, MD by chance?
- CountSessine 6y ago
  Why can't there be a shared conduit for cables underneath or beside a road? Because the city doesn't want to pay for it. What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that ...so, the cities won’t shell out to build conduits, but they’ll happily pay to build out conduits + fiber?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Well, they don't need to build out conduits + fiber, only fiber since the idea is encourage their monopoly over the last mile. They just need to do what is happening today on the private side and run a fiber (which is cheaper for each individual player). Then encouraging everything other than the last mile to be private sets up all the right incentive structures as far as I can see to solve a lot of problems of broadband internet access. You can see this model in very similar markets, where some countries run the cell network as a national utility. But your actual carriers are a large choice of companies connected to that network that differentiate on service, price, and added on features, rather than the amount of capital available for infrastructure investment.
    - chrishacken 6y ago
      Well you need conduit to run fiber generally; so you would be doing both.

monocasa 6y ago

> I don't understand why we have to dig up roads to lay cables. Why can't there be a shared conduit for cables underneath or beside a road? Because the city doesn't want to pay for it. And the companies, having the money to dig the road up don't want to make their competitor's jobs easier. So pretty classic market failure. What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that. Then the ISPs pay the city for use of the last mile on a endpoint by endpoint basis. Lowers the barrier for new ISPs since they don't have to dig up new last mile, and the city is encouraged to upkeep the last mile since it's a revenue stream with a few high paying representatives of customers (so no tragedy of the commons), but the low barrier to entry for ISPs means that the city won't get too connected to individual ISPs.

rayiner 6y ago
Okay but who is going to do that? My county is still working on bringing water and sewer to most places, and I’m less than 10 minutes outside Annapolis. Especially places that already have cable or fiber that was privately installed?
- monocasa 6y ago
  When there's a clear revenue source coming out of it, bonds make sense to pay for it. And yeah, if you're in barely first world conditions where you're struggling to hook sewer up to your residents near a major municipality, you obviously have systemic issues that get in the way of proper utility work of nearly any scale.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    20% of the country doesn’t have public water or sewer, including many fairly wealth areas. In vastly more of the country, existing water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement. Sure, you can pass bonds, but how do you get people to vote for those bonds when you also need to issue bonds for all this other higher priority infrastructure?
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > 20% of the country doesn’t have public water or sewer, including many fairly wealth areas Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way). > In vastly more of the country, existing water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement. Yes, the united states is devolving into a third world country when it comes to infrastructure. My scheme is obviously predicated on not being in one of the municipalities that are actively trying to run the concept of government into the ground. > Sure, you can pass bonds, but how do you get people to vote for those bonds when you also need to issue bonds for all this other higher priority infrastructure? So you don't get to have works like this until you have the basics of potable water covered. Like for real, 10 minutes outside of Annapolis should be able to have sewer covered.
      - db48x 6y ago
        That's probably a misunderstanding. There are plenty of places that don't have public water, but that do have abundant potable water. It's just coming from a nearby well rather than a water treatment plant. Same with the sewer; they've got private septic systems rather than a public sewer system. This type of distributed infrastructure is less costly and more resilient than public water and sewer systems, though it's not suitable for cities or even suburbs.
        monocasa 6y ago
        I understand that, I have a house on a well. That bit is covered by my first response: > Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way). The part you seem to take issue with is the part where I think I had reduced the subset to people who have an issue getting current infrastructure, probably because it hasn't been maintained properly (thinking of flint like situations). I'm admitting that there are cases where they have bigger utility issues and systemic problems managing those utilities, and probably don't have the bandwidth to deal with a new one.
- chrishacken 6y ago
  Are you in Hartford County, MD by chance?
CountSessine 6y ago
Why can't there be a shared conduit for cables underneath or beside a road? Because the city doesn't want to pay for it. What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that ...so, the cities won’t shell out to build conduits, but they’ll happily pay to build out conduits + fiber?
- monocasa 6y ago
  Well, they don't need to build out conduits + fiber, only fiber since the idea is encourage their monopoly over the last mile. They just need to do what is happening today on the private side and run a fiber (which is cheaper for each individual player). Then encouraging everything other than the last mile to be private sets up all the right incentive structures as far as I can see to solve a lot of problems of broadband internet access. You can see this model in very similar markets, where some countries run the cell network as a national utility. But your actual carriers are a large choice of companies connected to that network that differentiate on service, price, and added on features, rather than the amount of capital available for infrastructure investment.
  - chrishacken 6y ago
    Well you need conduit to run fiber generally; so you would be doing both.