SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dogs-and-cats-living-together,-mass-hysteria dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Years in the making, a proposal to mandate the installation of fiber conduits during federally funded highway projects might be gaining some new momentum.
If the US 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. US 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 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."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:06PM (4 children)
I don't think you understand the meaning of straw man argument.
Fortunately, we have Wikipedia to educate us on the issue.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
So let's see if the original argument really did fit that profile or not.
Really? Most likely response to road boss telling CEO he wants to put in pipe while building the road.
Private Road Company CEO: "You want to spend how much money putting EMPTY pipes in the road? Are you insane? The Board would fire me for wasting money that."
It's a cool story, bro, and it certainly does give the impression of refuting the argument that "government, which declares its income by decree, doesn't care that it squanders resources digging multiple times". But the little problem is that "Private Road Company CEO" is purely imaginary in a purely imaginary situation with no basis in fact, a traditional straw man approach. So we're supposed to find the original argument refuted because the replier, instead of presenting a serious argument, presented a figment of their imagination?
Needless to say, it checks off the straw man boxes and thus is a straw man argument. Hopefully, you are better aware now of what a straw man argument is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:40PM (3 children)
As I thought, you don't understand. Let's try a different approach.
The response wasn't to "Governemt ... ". That is pure flame bait and not worth a response. I responded to your assertion in the subject that a private company would spend money on something completely unrelated to its primary task of building a road. The empty pipe is an added expense that does not contribute to the road in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @02:01PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:27PM
I responded to your assertion in the subject that a private company would spend money on something completely unrelated to its primary task of building a road.
It's not completely unrelated to its primary task. This activity can add value to the road. And their primary task is not to build a road, but the revenue that they can earn from selling the road or collecting toll on that road.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:51PM
A private business might care more, but that doesn't mean they won't do multiple diggings. The real problem with this scheme is that it's top down. Someone decides that adding conduit to every road is valuable and they just do it without any consideration for whether it adds value in the situation or not.