[LINK] Labor commits to $4.5b high-speed Internet network

[Eleanor Lister]

considering the topic, this is wandering a little off the main point:

telecommunications could all use the same duct.

(if you are obsessed with single point of failure, have 2 ducts, or 3,
although i think that's over the top)

this was proposed around the time of T1 and contemptuously dismissed as
unnecessary  with the proposed USO, despite feeble pleas that open
ducting made the USO unnecessary  in the first place,  and Optus started
hanging wires because Telstra wouldn't share duct space, on the grounds
that they owned the right of way, which i don't know has been tested
legally.

it seems useful to share duct space for comms, but i am willing to
entertain any objections of substance and relevance.

regards,
    EL

Stewart Fist wrote:
> Kim proposes:
>   
>> I have been wondering what the best solution for the problem of
>> constantly digging up the streets is.  I wonder why the councils
>> don't put in ducts, big enough say for people to get in and to hold
>> all the council services.  Some of the problems that I see are that
>> having water and sewerage in the same duct may not be acceptable!
>> Having water and electricity in the same duct may possibly present
>> problems too!
>>
>> The council could own the ducts and control in that way what went in.
>>     
>
> A few decades ago this was much discussed, but very little acted upon.
>
> There was even a political movement which aimed to put a sort-of U-shaped
> duct system under footpaths, to carry storm-water, pipes, wires etc. Then
> all the authorities would need to do was to lift paving slabs to get access.
>
> They all looked like being good ideas, but they all had problems.
>
> 1. They only saved money on greenfields developments, not where services
> existed.  And they saved money for the service provider, while costing the
> developers more.  So without government support or subsidy, no one wanted to
> try them.  This is the problem with this sort of infrastrucure in times of
> small-government.
>
> 2. Not all services head in the same direction.  Water pipes might be laid
> at right-angles to electrical feeds.
>
> 3. It didn't make sense to put electrical power together with copper
> telephone wires (although it would be OK with fibre), and both were
> in-harmonious with burst water-pipes, storm-water, sewerage, etc.
> Electricity and gas was potentially a real problem, as was gas leaking into
> any cavity rather than the ground.
>
> 4. The ducting provided long-distance transport channels and housing for
> rats, mice, and maybe possums, etc.
>
> 5. Single-point of failure problems, from burst watermains, wash-aways, etc.
>
> My guess, is that it is one of those ideas that is superficially attractive,
> but not all that practical to the local authorities.  And it puts another
> burden on them to organise, manage and budget.
>
> Yet the cost of digging and redigging roads must be horrendous.  The council
> is working on the road a few doors up, as I write - cutting through the road
> looking for something (I suspect gas leak).
>
>
>   


-- 
------------
Eleanor Ashley Lister
South Sydney Greens
http://ssg.nsw.greens.org.au
webmistress at ssg.nsw.greens.org.au