> think the idea is to get fiber into the last mile. Vast parts of the country are still under construction. New subdivisions are being built

Such an interesting subject is this; we have freaking building codes, regulations and requirements - esp re: elec and structure and such...

We need to take a step back and make a freaking INFRA code that requires what the data line requirements to a building should be.

DATA SHOULD BE A UTILITY - just like the sewer, water, etc...

we should stop bitching about FCC this and that - and REQUIRE that construction includes the data plan as well. This will alleviate much of this kvetching.

Please give me your opinion on the above as I respect your perspective.

I think the breakdown should roughly be: developers must wire out to the property line (and if they're building a subdivision, out to the main road). The county should wire anywhere a public road is being built and bring glass to some reasonably convenient place (because otherwise developers would have nothing to connect the other end of the line to). Private companies should handle everything that's not dumb glass.

I think counties are reasonably capable of burying fiber in the ground as they build and repair roads, but that's about all I trust them to do. I live in the DC metro area. Our public sewers dump raw sewage into the Anacostia river every time it rains. The city has an extensive network of old lead pipes that are poisoning kids. The Metro was almost unusable last year because tracks were catching fire. These problems exist all over the country, and are all caused because by prices for services being set too low, because they are set by elected officials and not the market.

Meanwhile, we have had FiOS in MD/VA since 2006-ish. In that time the top speed has gone from 50 mbps to 750 mbps as Verizon upgraded OLTs, backhaul, etc. Yeah, I pay $100 per month for 300/300 service, while my water/sewer bill is so small I don't even know what I pay. But I don't see that as evidence my internet bill should be lower, I see it as evidence that my utility bill is too low.

>These problems exist all over the country, and are all caused because by prices for services being set too low, because they are set by elected officials and not the market.

They exist because the US continues to insist on spreading responsibility out of thousands of local governments instead of having a single set of rules and standards for everyone.

Why are we even building suburban subdivisions and strip malls still? Maybe if we utilized the infrastructure in urban areas (and even existing suburbs) we wouldn't have the need to keep investing in new infrastructure while our old infrastructure crumbles.

> Why are we even building suburban subdivisions and strip malls still

Not everyone wants to live in an apartment building.

A "radical" idea I'm advocating for, is that all of the following is concidered nessesary for the society, and thus should be done by the government, or heavyly regulared (non profit, enduser owned type of companies):

- Roads

- Water

- Sewer

- Community heat

- Healthcare

- Education

- Pension

- Internet connectivity

- Banking (including loans for 1 family houses) and card payment

Off the top of my head, you're also missing electricity, food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment. Those are more necessary than some of the things you've listed here.

So I guess we'll have the government own or heavily regulate 90% of the economy. Gee, that's historically worked so well in the past... :)

Banking as a utility? I love it. Credit unions are already a thing, and we have the National Credit Union Association, it's a small jump to the idea of a National Credit Union.

And we need single payer healthcare yesterday.

You just covered a significant fraction of all economic activity (maybe a majority).

Perhaps that was your intent?

All utilities should be owned, funded and built by the Government. Roads, sewers, water mains, power mains, data mains, etc.

This would only apply to projects receiving federal funding, which I don't imagine includes most subdivisions. Most likely just interstates, state highways, and maybe county highways. That wouldn't necessarily get fiber through your front door, but it should get it far enough out to provide a viable high speed option for rural households that are currently stuck with dial up or satellite.

They can make taking federal highway funds contingent on adopting a dig once policy for locally funded projects. This is how the speed limit and drinking age was standardized across the country.

I still find it astounding Americans can't drink until 21.

It will be an interesting change, for the federal government to use this power for good rather than evil.

But if this goes through on a national level it would spark off local legislation as well. This would be a great half-a-loaf for politicians who can't afford to oppose these monopolies.

There is no reason we couldn't or shouldn't also do the same thing at the state level.

Roads regularly get resurfaced in places that are already well-established, so it's not just a "new construction" thing.

Resurfacing, especially in rural areas, is exactly that -- the existing road is scored and then paved over. There's not enough room there to insert a conduit without actually digging a channel.

I'm not saying that work shouldn't be done, but it wouldn't be a case of just throwing down a pipe during normal resurfacing work.

wouldnt the equiv be that resurfacing==upgrading optics/lincards... you dont need to replace the actual fiber.