6 ms·

It might work out fine, but we need to hear from the people who would carry the actual the burden under this proposal, such as those in the construction industr

It might work out fine, but we need to hear from the people who would carry the actual the burden under this proposal, such as those in the construction industry that will have to lay the conduit under 'Dig once', and those who currently make money from laying cable who will have their business taken away. We also need to hear from experts in that field about how much it will cost and how it is best done. As written it sounds like those IT projects devised by people who have no knowledge of the field, who imagine that their idea must be easy, who make and sign off on a plan, and only then get me involved. These are almost universally poorly conceived, unnecessarily expensive, and produce bad results. In fact, in those respects it reminds me of another great public networking idea, public, city-wide WLAN networks (and in that case too, many IT professionals drank the Kool-Aid without thinking through the details). Also, when we talk about how easy it is - it is always easy when someone else has to figure out how to implement it, do the work, and pay the bill.

korethr 9y ago
I don't think those who presently are contracted for the cable laying work will have their work taken away from them. If anything, I think this is likely to guarantee work for some time. Say a road construction company wins the bid and gets a contract to work on a section of federally-funded road. I think it is likely they would already have some of the work, equipment or supplies sub-contracted out to specialists. Does it make more sense for them to own the entire supply chain for making concrete, from mining and refining the minerals, to mixing, delivery and pouring? Or does it make more sense for them to sub-contact out to a number of suppliers who they can call and say "I need $foo cubic feet of concrete, with $bar properties, delivered to $baz location at $quux date/time,"? I think the latter is more likely as it gives them more flexibility. Owning and operating the equipment and infrastructure to manufacture concrete has overhead costs like anything else. Similarly, if laying fiber becomes a requirement of taking the contract to build the roads, I think those fiber-laying companies will find themselves subcontracted those projects.
- hackuser 9y ago
  That sounds reasonable, but my point is that we all (or most of us, myself included) are ignorant and speculating, and so are the reporter, the article, and possibly everyone quoted in it. You wouldn't believe a story about the costs, feasibility, impact, etc. of an IT project if the reporter only talked to people in the construction industry and not to any IT professionals.

korethr 9y ago

I don't think those who presently are contracted for the cable laying work will have their work taken away from them. If anything, I think this is likely to guarantee work for some time. Say a road construction company wins the bid and gets a contract to work on a section of federally-funded road. I think it is likely they would already have some of the work, equipment or supplies sub-contracted out to specialists. Does it make more sense for them to own the entire supply chain for making concrete, from mining and refining the minerals, to mixing, delivery and pouring? Or does it make more sense for them to sub-contact out to a number of suppliers who they can call and say "I need $foo cubic feet of concrete, with $bar properties, delivered to $baz location at $quux date/time,"? I think the latter is more likely as it gives them more flexibility. Owning and operating the equipment and infrastructure to manufacture concrete has overhead costs like anything else. Similarly, if laying fiber becomes a requirement of taking the contract to build the roads, I think those fiber-laying companies will find themselves subcontracted those projects.

hackuser 9y ago
That sounds reasonable, but my point is that we all (or most of us, myself included) are ignorant and speculating, and so are the reporter, the article, and possibly everyone quoted in it. You wouldn't believe a story about the costs, feasibility, impact, etc. of an IT project if the reporter only talked to people in the construction industry and not to any IT professionals.