said by tmc8080:
much of the same reason these ideas were abaondoned more than 15 years ago was because of the added cost..
those bonded backhaul cables are going to be roughly the a simlar cost in addition to the dslams to just laying fiber + nodes in the FIRST PLACE!!! there isn't a reasonable way to get the cost down.. besides, using all the excess copper in a bundle leave ZERO room for new customers and defeats the purpose of having copper in the first place.. aggregation will not be able to get 400mbits on aging copper plant-- in the REAL WORLD all of this has been looked at before..
Running new fiber to the node or curb is extremely costly versus re-purposing copper, especially in low-density deployments.
Considering that cost is the number one consideration for a majority of consumers (versus the minority that will buy Fios), and even moreso for rural non-subscribers, copper-based technologies remain viable until such time as someone figures a way to bring down the real cost of stringing/laying fiber.
The 400mbps figure is clearly hype, but these technologies may deliver 40+ mbps where very little or none exists today. If I were living in the stix, I'd much rather have "slow DSL" today than LTE in 5 years or FTTH in 20.