republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
5.8 Million North American Homes Now Have Fiber
And about 17 million (16% of homes) could have it if they can afford it...
by Karl Bode Thursday 15-Apr-2010 tags: Fiber · coverage · business · stats
According to a new study commissioned by the Fiber To The Home Council, as of March of this year, there's about 18.2 million homes passed with fiber to the home connections in North America. "Homes passed" is sometimes a flaky term that doesn't always mean fiber is available, and the study indicates that about 17 million of those users can actually get fiber to the home. Of those, the number of homes actually connected just passed roughly 5.8 million.

Click for full size
Of course the significant majority of those fiber connections are courtesy of Verizon, who is just wrapping up their $23 billion fiber to the home network build. Still, the study notes that there's roughly 750 other service providers across North America deploying fiber to the home -- and most of them are small privately-owned telcos or cooperatives.

"With Verizon approaching the end of its initial FiOS expansion, we are seeing a lot of small local exchange carriers in the U.S. who are ready to pick up the slack, along with some cable TV companies deploying RFoG and some larger Canadian companies going FTTH," said Joe Savage, President of the FTTH Council. The Council is stocked with fiber hardware vendors and carriers who obviously want this trend to continue.

"To continue to meet the rapidly growing bandwidth requirements for emerging applications and services, these companies know that they have to 'future-proof' their networks by running fiber all the way to the premises - and that's why we are seeing all this activity," he added. Of course there's also a significant number of public telcos who plan to nurse copper over the next decade -- given that many investors don't like paying for network upgrades.

Still, we're making steady but slow progress anyway. FTTH has now reached almost 16% penetration of U.S. households in terms of homes passed -- and 5% in terms of homes connected according to the study. The study's author, Mike Render, insists that once a fiber network is built, take rates among consumers averages "above 50 percent."

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

nurse copper over the next decade -- given that many investors don't like paying for network upgrades.
I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper.

Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

I think it can also be said that the customers and taxpayers have long since payed for the network upgrades that aren't being realized.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech

1 edit
I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper.
Feh.

Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. Consumers have no problem paying for connectivity if they're being offered value and quality...and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers.

No, myopic short-sighted investors who prize their own short term gains over the company's long-term health are a much larger reason for stalled upgrade plans.

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·SureWest Internet

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by Karl Bode:

Feh.

Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market.

I second Karls Feh with a Meh:
All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

2 edits

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by spewak:

All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
And many many customers would choose the slower speeds in order to pay $19/mo less. Not you, but many customers would, because they don't need or want the higher speeds. Any questions?

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·SureWest Internet

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by spewak:

All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
Any questions?
Have you ever used Frontier?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by spewak:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by spewak:

All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
Any questions?
Have you ever used Frontier?
No. But I used Comcast 8 yrs ago when the high speed was 1000/128 kbps. And that worked just fine. Even with video streaming that is now std today, 3000/512 is good enough for a majority of the users.

N10Cities
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Lavaca, AR
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
said by spewak:

said by Karl Bode:

Feh.

Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market.

I second Karls Feh with a Meh:
All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
Wow! 25/25! I would GLADLY cough up the extra $20 for that kind of speed. Could easily make that up each month by eating a couple of extra baloney and cheese sammiches!

Matt
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by N10Cities:

Wow! 25/25! I would GLADLY cough up the extra $20 for that kind of speed. Could easily make that up each month by eating a couple of extra baloney and cheese sammiches!
I pay $50/month for 20/20 fiber and I can get 30/30 for $60 ...

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·SureWest Internet

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by Matt:

said by N10Cities:

Wow! 25/25! I would GLADLY cough up the extra $20 for that kind of speed. Could easily make that up each month by eating a couple of extra baloney and cheese sammiches!
I pay $50/month for 20/20 fiber and I can get 30/30 for $60 ...
It is nice isn't it Matt?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!

joebarnhart
Paxio evangelist

join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by spewak:

All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Yep. Agree 100%

And don't forget Paxio's 20/20 for $48.50 or their 50/50 for $74.50.

Want gig? $245/mo.!

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
said by Karl Bode:

.and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers.
And offering lower price plans don't lower the costs of upgrading to fiber - all that does is lower income to cover the costs.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

There's a million ways to make money in this market, from value added services to DNS redirection ads, And it's not like prices are SO DAMN LOW RIGHT NOW that companies can't afford to upgrade. I still don't see your point.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by Karl Bode:

There's a million ways to make money in this market, from value added services to DNS redirection ads, And it's not like prices are SO DAMN LOW RIGHT NOW that companies can't afford to upgrade. I still don't see your point.
What we need are regulations that increase the cost of providing copper based broadband solutions to push incumbents towards building out fiber. If the plan had put major taxes on copper and offset those taxes with subsidies for fiber, you might see AT&T and Verizon announcing new plans for fiber expansion to their customers.
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

Hey, that's a good idea! Of course, you will get flack from those who will call it 'social engineering/socialism', but most of those types are heavily invested in the status quo, so those opinions are worthless. Not to mention the 'any taxes are bad' crowd, most of who's leaders fall under the previous category.

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
Sounds like a great idea (in theory)! However, I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be thrilled to build their fiber networks on the backs of the customers of already struggling companies like Qwest, Frontier, and Fairpoint. A plan like that would be sure to speed up their demise and give the cable companies a monopoly in those areas.... Furthermore, you'd have tons of people on this site crying foul over AT&T and Verizon getting even more tax breaks. The government should be finding ways to encourage competition, not picking winners and losers.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

I don't like the idea of giving Verizon and AT&T any more money, but in this age of centrist Democrats and wing-nut Republicans, it's a compromise to speed up FTTH adoption. Once the fiber's been built out you can start worrying about regulating the monopolies.

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

I disagree, if you take care of the competition problem, the speed problem will take care of itself. Why? Well, if there's enough competition, companies that don't keep up will get left behind. Right now, there isn't much competition, so these companies don't really have to keep up with anybody! We can probably debate all the live long day on how to encourage competition, but in reality this would create better speeds.

Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by lakerfan82:

Well, if there's enough competition, companies that don't keep up will get left behind.
What keeps you from getting to a point where only two companies haven't been left behind?

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

Maybe you should ask car makers, cell phone makers, computer makers, or any body else in an industry that has healthy competition! Its not truly healthy competition if its so easy to get to a point where there are only 1 or 2 companies...
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
said by lakerfan82:

Sounds like a great idea (in theory)! However, I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be thrilled to build their fiber networks on the backs of the customers of already struggling companies like Qwest, Frontier, and Fairpoint. A plan like that would be sure to speed up their demise and give the cable companies a monopoly in those areas.... Furthermore, you'd have tons of people on this site crying foul over AT&T and Verizon getting even more tax breaks. The government should be finding ways to encourage competition, not picking winners and losers.
Just to nit pick a little, Qwest would probably be included with Verizon and at&t in this area, as they are still the 3rd largest pots provider, still an RBOC, and a very large isp. It is also no longer seen as struggling (check out the share price and history). As for encouraging competition, I sure would like to hear your ideas.

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by viperlmw:

Just to nit pick a little, Qwest would probably be included with Verizon and at&t in this area, as they are still the 3rd largest pots provider, still an RBOC, and a very large isp. It is also no longer seen as struggling (check out the share price and history). As for encouraging competition, I sure would like to hear your ideas.
I guess that would depend on whether or not a massive tax is levied on their entire network. Qwest's biggest problem is, they don't have a wireless network to help offset their dying landline business. As far as encouraging competition, I won't dare suggest that I am any sort of expert in this industry. I think while most of the damage has already been done, not allowing additional ISP mergers would be a great start. Some have suggested breaking up last mile ISPs from backbone providers, so you don't have a situation where a company like Time Warner or a new entrant is dependent on internet backbones from an incumbent competitor like Verizon or AT&T...Whats the biggest reason for the lack of competition? Cost to start up a new network is huge, so we've got to find ways to lower this cost in order to create competition...

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

1 edit
said by Karl Bode:

I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper.
Feh.

Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. Consumers have no problem paying for connectivity if they're being offered value and quality...and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers.

No, myopic short-sighted investors who prize their own short term gains over the company's long-term health are a much larger reason for stalled upgrade plans.
Speeds offered by FTTH providers also seem to depend on competition in the market.

Why hasn't Verizon offered anything faster than 50Mbps to the general public? With fiber we're supposed to be seeing speeds like 1 gigabit. Instead, Verizon FiOS only seems to want to do slightly better than cable, its primary competition. They also seem to be selling the TV service way more than the internet service. What gives?
flashcore

join:2007-01-23
united state

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

It is my understanding that MOST of the equipment used on older FiOS installs is still BPON (I know mine is from 2007) which can not handle 100Mbit to all users, with newer deployments using GPON they could do 100Mbit but there still limited by bandwidth at the central office which is usually just a couple of 1 gigabit lines. At this point there really is not many sites out there that can even handle 25Mbit except for large company's (MS, Apple etc...) so what is there incentive to push higher speeds when there going to have to upgrade all the hardware at each end of the fiber to do it costing millions. It makes since to just keep up with cable until they start pushing 1080p over IP which will take a lot more bandwidth and they will be forced to upgrade.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost

said by flashcore:

. At this point there really is not many sites out there that can even handle 25Mbit except for large company's (MS, Apple etc...)
That's not true. Any sites using one of the large CDNs (Akamai, Level3 etc) can serve high speed traffic. They are also peered very close to you, either in your ISP or peered with one of your ISP's backbone providers so there are not a lot of hops to go through.

Google also peers with a lot of ISPs. This means that you have a relatively short path to YouTube as well.

JohnABa

@verizon.net
Well, I think that the TV service is considerably more profitable than internet. Not any more complicated than that

Matt
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
said by ThrowDemsOut:

nurse copper over the next decade -- given that many investors don't like paying for network upgrades.
I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper.
My local ILEC is running fiber and offers internet, phone, and TV much cheaper than both U-Verse and Time Warner.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
What are you talking about?

Just because they reinvest in the network does not mean that it is a higher cost. It has been shown multiple times that copper cost a lot more to maintain than fiber. I would also like to see proof that after $ offset that it actually even cost more to roll out fiber than it did to lay the existing copper they have been milking for decades upon decades.

Every one of these major carriers can reinvest only 50% of their net profits EVERY QUARTER and wire their entire foot print within the next few years and own it outright with absolutely no debt on the network.

We as consumers pay more because we dont have much of a choice if we want it. It has nothing to do with being willing to pay more for the upgrades or not.

Van
Premium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA

Will be interesting to see when FiOS re-starts

its expansion

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

Re: Will be interesting to see when FiOS re-starts

said by Van:

Will be interesting to see when FiOS re-starts its expansion
I'd be willing to bet that it won't be until AFTER Verizon gets approval for it sale of assets to Frontier and AFTER Verizon finds out how much money that the feds will give them as part of the broadband plan.

mod_wastrel
Gone fishin'

join:2008-03-28
"When" or "if"? Will Verizon's next expansion be with FiOS or LTE? The typical user would be happy with 5/2 or even 5/1. How about FTTN coupled with WTTH (wireless to the home )?

Cruz1

@sbcglobal.net

I would pay for fiber...

I'm stuck in an AT&T hellhole here but I would gladly pay someone for a fiber line if I can get Fios or Fios like speeds... the 1.5mbit upload speeds I get on ATT's best U-Verse tier BLOWS... too bad they are too stupid to realize I would gladly pay a couple thousand $ upfront for fiber or pay 3x as much a month to get a 50mbit up/50mbit down.
nishiko7
Premium
join:2007-05-01
Pleasant Hill, CA
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: I would pay for fiber...

said by Cruz1 :

... the 1.5mbit upload speeds I get on ATT's best U-Verse tier BLOWS...
Cruz1,

Perhaps that's the best speed YOU can get because of distance limitations or because it's not ready on your VRAD yet, but MOST UVerse customers can now get 24/3 Mbps internet speeds. I'm sure at least 65% of their UVerse customers can now get those (24/3) speeds, with a higher percentage to come over time.

The much laughed at pair-bonding should actually be a reality within the next year or sooner, probably, which would vastly expand UVerse speed options to those who currently can't be provisioned at a sufficient rate for the higher speed Internet tiers they offer. A 3 Mbps upload speed is still fairly decent by today's standards (in the U.S., on average), and as much as most people need and are willing to pay for.

Everyone can think what they want about UVerse (and VDSL2 in general), but I at least want to make sure it's represented fairly. If at&t wanted to, they could provision MUCH higher speeds for most customers at or below the 1500 feet mark (from the VRAD), but they presently want to keep things simpler and more standardized across the board I guess.

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
So would (did) I. When I was looking for houses 2 years ago, I had the choice between what were essentially identical (including floor plan) houses about a block apart. The major difference? One was in AT&T U-verse territory, the other was in Verizon FiOS territory. I gladly paid about $3000 more for the house in FiOS territory. Did I NEED all that extra bandwidth? Not necessarily, but it was NICE to have, and I figured I'd need it down the road. Unfortunately, we on DSL reports are probably in the minority. I think most people in America wouldn't make the same decision you and I would make, and that's why I think you see Verizon's max FiOS tier of 50 mbit up instead of something closer to 100. Its also probably a reason why many would choose a cheaper DSL plan over a more expensive but faster Cable or Fiber plan, even when those options are available.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: I would pay for fiber...

said by lakerfan82:

So would (did) I. When I was looking for houses 2 years ago, I had the choice between what were essentially identical (including floor plan) houses about a block apart. The major difference? One was in AT&T U-verse territory, the other was in Verizon FiOS territory. I gladly paid about $3000 more for the house in FiOS territory. Did I NEED all that extra bandwidth? Not necessarily, but it was NICE to have, and I figured I'd need it down the road. Unfortunately, we on DSL reports are probably in the minority. I think most people in America wouldn't make the same decision you and I would make, and that's why I think you see Verizon's max FiOS tier of 50 mbit up instead of something closer to 100. Its also probably a reason why many would choose a cheaper DSL plan over a more expensive but faster Cable or Fiber plan, even when those options are available.
Except that's just not true. DSL companies have been losing customers to faster (but more expensive) cable competitors for years. Why do you think AT&T bothered with U-Verse?

As for people wanting wideband, the *exact* same thing was said about broadband in the late '90s. Just give people a taste of wideband, and see what happens when you try to take it back away.

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

Re: I would pay for fiber...

If there's such an insatiable thirst for faster speeds, why is the 15 mbit tier the most popular Fios tier when you can get 35 or even 50 mbit speeds? Why are a paltry 5.8 million households subscribing to fiber when its available to 18 million? A lot of times its still about price. Now I'll agree with you, that once you've experienced wideband, its near impossible to go back, but not everyone is like DSL reports readers either...

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Crap! pun intended.


High Speed Qwest fiber
(01_PNG_10056_0500_Metamucil_S_FLA_PIXELSIZE_Product_US_ENG_01.jpg)
The only fiber we have in Qwest land, Wyoming.

BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO

Re: Crap! pun intended.

Ha ha! I should walk into the central office across the street and ask, "Do you guys have any Berry Burst Fiber?".
--
Thy really?
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Crap! pun intended.

said by BBBanditRuR:

Ha ha! I should walk into the central office across the street and ask, "Do you guys have any Berry Burst Fiber?".
They only have it in rainbow.
horseshoe
Premium
join:2006-10-11
Upland, CA

Passed

Homes passed indeed! The wiring truck/crew passed by my side of the street, went to the other side, wired it, then passed on down into the sunset.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

down the line..

eventually there will be a tipping point for AT&T to begin dealing with conversion of dslamed deep fiber nodes and converting them & the last mile to fiber. a few dozen municipalities will rise up & deploy their own fiber network with federal government help... and generous usf funds. as long as most towns with a population of 5,000 residents or more can get fiber backhaul within 50 miles of the town, the logistics of bringing it the rest of the way & in the last mile become much less of a barrier. it's time to bring the financial incentives to these tier-1 companies to get their product closer to the consumers. fiber bleeds up out of the ground in the northeast & yet there is still many shortages in rural areas which means it's also time to lift the one or two carrier restriction on rural zones once & for all time-- a federal law making any local law restricting new carrier deployments invalid when only one or two carriers exist and yet have no real incentive to upgrade & improve the local network need that 3rd & 4th carrier.

most usa fttp projects have ended up in higher costs to the consumer.. maybe they didn't start out that way but leave it to a Verizon to tarnish the competitive environment & manipulate the ISP industry into this dysfunctional walled garden industry that it is today. forced bundling also is a problem as well since the stand-alone prices are very outrageously high-- another brick in that walled garden.
markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO

In other news..

..studies made don't mean jack most of the time. Its keen to Department of Defense making a study saying most soldiers in the army wear camo %99 of the time in war situations.
chronoss2009
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

these 5.8 million

about 90% of them we should storm there homes assets and raid there banks
there the rich people that have way tooo much money and also prolly bought ipads cause they retarded

lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

Re: these 5.8 million

All the "redlining" arguments have pretty much been discredited as there have been many reports from users in places like DC, Philadelphia, Southern California that have said poor and middle class neighborhoods got fiber long before "rich" neighborhoods. Many of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the Inland Empire (ie Rancho Cucamonga) still haven't gotten FiOS, and may never get it, while the crappiest neighborhoods in Fontana (lovingly referred to as Fontucky), Chino, Ontario all have it.
WA_Resident

join:2009-12-12

5.8 million in the USA or "North America"

Since Canada and Mexico make up "North America", does it also include those countries in this so called study?
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Re: 5.8 million in the USA or "North America"

I thought Mexico was "Central" In school I learned the USA and Canada were North America (go figure)
WA_Resident

join:2009-12-12

Re: 5.8 million in the USA or "North America"

said by bn1221:

I thought Mexico was "Central" In school I learned the USA and Canada were North America (go figure)
They taught you wrong!

Mexico is officially part of North America.

Central America starts on Mexico's southern border with Guatemala and Belize.
treichhart

join:2006-12-12
Reviews:
·AT&T Wireless Br..

1 edit

FTTH

see most rural FTTH is owned by a smaller telco and there speeds are capped either at 2mb to 5mb line because I have FTTH here in coldwater,ohio and Im paying 40 dollars for 5mb down connection and when I do speed test I get any where from 4.7mb down to 6mb to 7mb upload. When I asked my FTTH provider if they was going to update the speed package and they simply told me NO.

I would like to see any FTTH provider to come into coldwater,ohio offering a larger package then 5mb.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: FTTH

That's...pathetic. Provisioning of the bandwidth in a fiber network is one of the cheapest costs in network maintenance. They are really intent on making back their investments as quickly as possible aren't they.
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Re: FTTH

That's...pathetic. Provisioning of the bandwidth in a fiber network is one of the cheapest costs in network maintenance. They are really intent on making back their investments as quickly as possible aren't they.

+

maybe the ILEC has to pay rape me rates from the Tier 1. Remember just cause fiber has a lot of bandwidth doesn't mean they can get a jillion gigabits from *their* provider.

I'd trade my 2/15 cable for 5/5 fiber though.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: FTTH

T3 for $10000 a mo plus mileage rate, prepayment required, 7 year contract too.
ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:1

att what?

If you call AT&T FTTP, you might as well call the Cable companies FTTP. Verizon kicks A$$

FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

We got fiber....

We got fiber in may of 2005, we had to wait 3 months on an instal list.

- A
--
LETS GO METS!

Saturday, 11-Feb 23:54:16 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.