Not the best title. The requirement is to build conduits (empty tubes) at the same time as the road. The fiber would come later.

Better write-up from when it was first introduced: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/158975-e...

edit: title on HN was changed, woot :)

Isn't there still a bunch of unlit fiber in the ground from the first tech bubble? Isn't the main problem getting fiber to the household (i.e. the last mile)?

If I understand this correctly, this legislation sounds like it might have been useful a decade ago.

Is that actually true though? I assumed a lot of it had been lit up since then, and if you assume continued exponential or even linear growth in internet traffic (cable tv becoming a relic of the 20th century, etc), it stands to reason we'll need more backbone capacity as well as more last-mile connectivity.

I'm not even going to get into whether they're being honest about it, but when I called to ask about transferring my service to a new apartment, Verizon told me that they'd stopped rolling out FIOS to new locations because they didn't have the fiber for it.

I kind of just assumed that it was the prelude to asking for more money, but it seems like there's likely some truth to it.

Backbone capacity is not nearly as big of an issue, despite traffic growth. Long haul DWDM systems get denser, higher bit rate transponders get built, etc to push more bits across the same fiber.

The growth of bits/second per fiber has also been exponential.

In a presentation with Tom Jenkins (CEO OpenText) in 2009, he said that the dark fiber was projected to be fully used within a year.

IIRC, I thought that Google was buying up all of the Dark Fiber. I've heard various theories on what will happen with it:

1) Use it to link all their data centers together forming a sort of 'global Google intranet.'

2) Use it as the backbone for their community internet initiatives.

It's also possible to combine those two.

I'm more interested in last-mile solutions. Where I live has abysmal internet service. In fact, DSL was unavailable in our neighborhood until after cable made its appearance. I'm willing to pay for a decent, business-class solution for internet service, as our consumer package craps out every month or so. However, the top business-class package for our cable provider is only 10/2, and that would run north of $300/month without any other services like phone or TV.

I would love a solution like Verizon FIOS but they don't serve my area. Fiber to the home is what I really want.

Verizon has all but abandoned their FIOS deployments. I wish there were more companies like Sonic doing fiber deployments in high density cities. I assume that isn't happening because of the Telco/Cable duopoly that controls easement rights in almost every city.

Why did they abandon it?

All the relatively cheap installs are done. Running fiber is expensive.

If I owned a home, I would seriously consider paying for that fiber. As far as I know, there are no providers that will let a private party run their own fiber.

It would cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, minimum. Probably more, if they're not already in your neighborhood with it. There are dozens of companies that'll run you private fiber - you just have to foot the whole bill. L3 and Cox both do it in my area, for example. This isn't a residential cable/ftth deployment, but it sure is a provider running private fiber. It's also orders of magnitude more than residential FIOS.

Somewhat related, the Southern Pacific Communications Company story is pretty interesting. Somebody had the vision to lay down fiber optic under all that rock and railroads ties. This network is now known as the vast Sprint Internet backbone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel#GTE_Sprint

http://www.rightofwaymagazine-digital.org/row/20110708?pg=31...

One question. Who would then have access to this conduit? Any company? All Companies?

Someone has to own, operate, install, maintain and fix that fiber.

So, does the company that just laid their own fiber last year get penalized as someone can come in for a much reduced cost and run fiber to compete?

This would have been a good idea 15 years ago. Now it's kind of moot. We already have fiber that's anywhere near a federal highway. Most likely we will have to go _under_ that highway and cross it in metro areas.

Federal grants have paid to put a lot of fiber into the ground in rural areas: http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/

Disclaimer: I work for a Telco that owns a lot of fiber.

Inspired by the Engadget/PBS piece[1], it seems that an open auction with a few conditions might produce the best results:

  1) Winner may sell wholesale only (i.e. independent ISPs
     must lease the right to offer the fiber for retail sale).

  2) Lowest per bit price for leasing wins the auction
     (or maybe there is a better metric?).

  3) Add some type of incentive for local governments to 
     help build-out the last mile (or maybe such a deal
     would trigger the initial auction?).

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but I think it would get us closer to better/cheaper broadband.

[1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband...

Whoever can pay to lease a conduit would have access to it, I'd imagine. The company that leases the conduit would be responsible for buying the glass, pulling it, and splicing it. I imagine a contractor would be selected to repair and maintain the conduit in the event of back hoe.

Power companies and some telecoms do this now for "pole rights" on aerial fiber/copper builds.

This sounds the same as the Broadband Conduit Deployment bill that was discussed in 2008 right after the Stimulus had passed. I haven't seen a word written against it, yet apparently it never became law. What gives? Who opposes it?

illinois has something like this along its toll roads:

http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_dad=portal&_...

I can't believe we are still trying to figure out how to do this.

Maybe we should 1st stop the protected monopoly status of Comcast, ATT and the other telecom cartels.

Have fun with that lobbyist cluster-fuck! There's so much telco stuff that needs reformed, but no political will at all...

I doubt that the conduit that would be installed would result in more ubiquitous wired broadband coverage or for higher speeds to existing wired broadband users.

More likely, it would allow mobile carrier to install suitable size data backhaul connections to their towers in rural areas instead setting up a bunch of microwave links.

fiber+wireless...