dslreports logo
 story category
6.5 Million Homes Now Have Fiber Broadband
20 Million homes now passed, 1.6 million in the last 6 months
According to the latest fiber to the home data out of the FTTH Conference and Expo this week in Las Vegas, residential fiber service "passes" some 20 million U.S. homes, with 6.5 million households actually signing up for service. Overall, there were 1.6 million new homes passed in the last six months alone. Of course the lion's share of these connections are Verizon FiOS, and while Verizon has frozen FiOS expansion into new markets, they are still building out in cities where they've signed franchise agreements (DC, NY, Philly). Some of this continued FTTH growth is also thanks to broadband stimulus funds, a new chunk of which was announced this morning.
view:
topics flat nest 
ChrisDG74
join:2010-05-27
Cincinnati, OH

ChrisDG74

Member

Not me

Come on Cincinnati Bell. Your Fioptics services are available 2 BLOCKS from my house. Pretty please, keep going.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology

Premium Member

Re: Not me

I gots mine...
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

A theoretical conversation. A friend inquires, I hear you can get a fiber connection from Verizon in your home. Homeowner replies Big F#*king deal. I will stick with my cable broadband. I don't want to go through the inconvenience and the cost of having a fiber connection installed. How will I benefit? My broadband connection is fast enough.

It it unfortunate but Verizon can offer a fiber connection to a homeowner but you cannot make them subscribe to the service. LOL Verizon.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

2 recommendations

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Hence the ~30% subscription rate. In the end, the medium used to access the Internet is irrelevant for a majority of consumers.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Very true - the bottom line(s) become:

- Features (DVR, OnDemand)
- COST (that's my biggest keeper)
- Bundle (TWC has a VERY simple/easy triple play bundle, while AT&T doesn't quite, and at a higher price for less)
- CATV - MANY of us still use 2-99 on a standard def TV and don't have to eat the $10/box + HD fees that you do on AT&T/VZ/satellite.

pclover
join:2008-08-02
Santa Cruz, CA

1 edit

pclover to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
Well yeah I've seen that convo but agree with them.

You don't need 50 Mbps fiber to check an email. Or even a cable connect to to. A 512 Kbps DSL connection is enough for email lol.

Personally I think Verzion needs to ask people if they want Verizon in there area and will subscribe to it. However How would they do that without annoying people?

I would get FiOS if I could but I can't because the CO in my are is owned by ATT. Probably wont ever come to my area unless I move.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
well there is also the other headache of changing providers other than the long install. getting new Email addresses. dispite the uptake of services like Hotmail and Gmail lots and lots of typical ISP customers use their ISP address. So if someone has had an @comcast.net for years and years they might be reluctant to change that.
thatissick
join:2010-08-17
Atlanta, GA

thatissick

Member

I'm still waiting for mine

Considered U-verse, but since its not FTTH, not going to happen.

Also, the letter (yes, they mailed me a letter) they sent me trying to convince me to switch was appalling.

runzero
join:2005-09-16
DC

runzero

Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

Well, they'll eventually be forced to go to FTTH when the competition is really hurting their subscriber numbers. Although I'm not sure how AT&T is going to pull this off after wasting so much money on "pair-bonding". Deploying fiber probably would have cost the same price.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

So, how much has AT&T" wasted" on its VDSL deployment? A lot less than VZ's fiber deployment.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

1 recommendation

jmn1207

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

Well, Verizon buried the rotting carcass, although they held an extravagant funeral. AT&T merely sprayed air freshener to temporarily mask the stink. It was the cheaper solution, but the underlying problem still exists.
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL

kaila to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
The cheapskate pays the most. Next year the LTE rollouts begin in earnest, which means their wireline DSL and VDSL will be getting their butts kicked by both cable AND wireless.

Unless they want to be the economy choice and compete solely on price, they'll have to leave DSL & even VDSL behind and do FTTH in a massive way. Something at this point they're ill equipped to do.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

Yet EPS and revenue continue to grow, wireless churn is at an all time low, 200K+ U-verse adds for a total of 2.5 million subscribers. U-verse subs is a little less than Verizon's FiOS subs, but AT&T also invested about 1/4 to serve those subs. Seems ok to me so far. VDSL cost less than FiOS and deployed fiber closer to the customer than what AT&T had with DSL. Think of it as an incremental upgrade.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

Keep in mind that AT&T is carefully choosing which markets to attack with their U-Verse product. This is merely a band-aid to appease investors, and that last increment is a freaking doozy that will cost, oh, about as much as Verizon has already spent.

The telcos are losing subscribers to cable giants, and their only retort is to offer similar services at a competitive price. U-Verse may hold up in certain markets now, but it is barely able to keep up, and a solution that brings fiber to each individual home is not much cheaper now than it was before fiber was strung kinda close.

This is trouble for AT&T's wire line service. They keep dumping money into an old car, and while they might be saving money short-term, in the end they would have been better off selling the heap and getting something new that would bring them into the future with satisfaction and hope.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

Verizon is carefully choosing markets to deploy FiOS in as well, so not much different than AT&T. Verizon's install costs dropped significantly over the few years of deployment, so AT&T's costs going in to an eventual FTTH build will likely be less in the future than if it had deployed all fiber in place of U-verse.

runzero
join:2005-09-16
DC

3 edits

runzero to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
The only reason why AT&T's wireless business is profiting is because of the iPhone. The moment it's released to other carriers, you'll see subscribers running away from them by the boatloads.

U-verse may have a million or so fewer subscribers, but keep in mind that AT&T covers 5x the geographical area of Verizon and U-verse is available for 2 to 3 times as many households as FiOS. Seems to me that many consumers don't want a inferior service. VDSL may cost less to deploy at first, but the cost of repairing copper lines, deploying pair-bonding, and so forth has probably exceeded how much it costs to just plop a fiber line directly to the home.

There's also huge inconsistencies where some 1% of U-verse customers are FTTH, yet they get lower sync rates than the FTTN customers. If AT&T half-asses this already, what are they supposed to do in the middle of an upgrade to FTTH? Do they just keep the 50% of FTTH customers waiting for better service while AT&T slowly works on the other half that's FTTN? It's more likely that the FTTH people would be flocking to the cable or satellite providers rather than wait for the crappy HD quality and internet to improve.

AT&T is in very, very big trouble.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm still waiting for mine

said by runzero:

The only reason why AT&T's wireless business is profiting is because of the iPhone. The moment it's released to other carriers, you'll see subscribers running away from them by the boatloads.
Really? So AT&T's 90.1 million wireless subscribers are only because of AT&T's estimated 13 million iPhone subscribers?
said by runzero:

but the cost of repairing copper lines, deploying pair-bonding, and so forth has probably exceeded how much it costs to just plop a fiber line directly to the home.
Something tells me that AT&T's U-verse costs haven't exceeded Verizon's FiOS costs yet. Don't get me wrong, I believe fiber deployments inevitable for wireline service (to include cable companies) at some point, but so far AT&T seems to have done ok with VDSL as a stepping stone.

lighthouseJ
cheers
join:2005-05-02
Golden, CO

lighthouseJ

Member

not in my area

yeah not in my area here in Montana! Thats why at the end of the month I will be in NYC and will have FIOS! or some form of Fiber.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: not in my area

You're moving from MT to NYC to get access to FTTH? Hopefully you've got a nice job lined up to compensate for the increased cost of living.
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC

wahoospa

Member

Copper

I still have copper, guess who my internet provider is. I'll give you a clue, their name was once associated with America and Telephone and Telegraph service.
Madtown
Premium Member
join:2008-04-26
93637-2905

Madtown

Premium Member

Re: Copper

said by wahoospa:

I still have copper, guess who my internet provider is. I'll give you a clue, their name was once associated with America and Telephone and Telegraph service.
I'm in the same boat. What speed do you sub to? I subscribe to the Pro plan.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

fact: UPSTREAM MATTERS to 6.5 million people

word to lame cable companies.. UPSTREAM MATTERS!
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

1 edit

chgo_man99

Member

Re: fact: UPSTREAM MATTERS to 6.5 million people

said by tmc8080:

word to lame cable companies.. UPSTREAM MATTERS!
thats more of technical constrains of HFC (including telco's dsl) than corporate greed.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to tmc8080

Premium Member

to tmc8080
I bet cost of service matters more.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

Re: fact: UPSTREAM MATTERS to 6.5 million people

said by openbox9:

I bet cost of service matters more.
If you look at most franchise agreements being negotiated now and into the future they will require more FIBER backbone/last mile to last mile nodes deep into the community than ever required before. That can mean only one thing... support better service inclusive of symmetrical bandwidth or go home..

Prices can always be regulated if the markets are way out of whack in terms of pricing. You'd really never end up seeing that comcast 250gb suggested cap happen in the northeast without cable company heads rolling
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: fact: UPSTREAM MATTERS to 6.5 million people

Great, so fiber is being deployed further towards the last mile. That's a natural evolution that has been happening for quite some time. My point is that your claim that upstream matters to 6.5 million people, especially as a fact, is likely not correct. More often than not cost of service is a significant player.

Comcast serves several northeast markets. Does it not have a 250 GB cap in those markets?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

confused.

I really don't understand what scares companies away from the idea of upgrading to fiber?? the only explanation that I can come up with is collusion
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: confused.

said by ArrayList:

I really don't understand what scares companies away from the idea of upgrading to fiber??
I'm gonna guess it's the relatively significant outlay of cash required for the infrastructure build.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: confused.

said by openbox9:

said by ArrayList:

I really don't understand what scares companies away from the idea of upgrading to fiber??
I'm gonna guess it's the relatively significant outlay of cash required for the infrastructure build.
More the total lack of competition.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: confused.

Cable companies are making a run on the telcos, so I don't believe lack of competition is as big of a deal as some make it to be. More likely, it's the large capital investment that scares most companies away.

klipko
join:2006-06-28
Portland, OR

klipko

Member

Timing

Timing was key for me to switch from Comcast to Verizon (now Frontier) 3 years ago. Looking at it today, Comcast has caught up with FiOS offerings where for most people the switch isn't worth it. For us BBR readers who are more knowledgeable about these topics might be more inclined to switch to save a few bucks and gain more channels / internet bandwidth.
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO

bsoft

Member

Re: Timing

Begrudgingly I have to agree. With DOCSIS 3.0 and the analog cutoff, I don't feel that I have significantly worse service here (Comcast - Boulder, CO) than my relatives do on FiOS.

Note that this wasn't always the case - when the best I could get was 8/2 and my relatives in VA had FiOS with (IIRC) 20/10, plus way more HD, it was a bit harsh.

Unfortunately the HFC bag-o-tricks is running out. They've already gotten rid of (almost all) analog and extended systems to 1GHz. Next up is probably SDV.

The problem is - what then? Bad options (H.264, which would require an absurd number of box swaps) start to look good. You start looking at 1024-QAM or extending the spectrum again. You push fiber deeper into the network.

It's not that HFC isn't competitive now or into the immediate future. But it's a legitimate question as to whether HFC will look any better in 10 years than twisted-pair copper phone lines look now. Technology can get you a long way (look at DSL) but ultimately you can only cram so much bandwidth down a coax cable.

We're still years away from that, though, and in the meantime cable is looking very good compared to the phone providers.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to klipko

Premium Member

to klipko
Agreed. I just transitioned from Cox HSI to FiOS, and honestly, for the extra $12/mth I'm spending, I'm not impressed.
xrobertcmx
Premium Member
join:2001-06-18
White Plains, MD

xrobertcmx

Premium Member

I love my FIOS

The picture is fantastic, the internet speeds are great. It is a good service.
Obi1Kanobi
join:2006-01-27
Bronx, NY

Obi1Kanobi

Member

got cable wish i had fiber

Im on Cablevison systems and while my speeds and normally in good shape i like to stay up with the current standards and would like to get FIOS in my area as soon as possible.

For me its a no brainer and ill switch to FIOS as soon as i can get it and theres pretty much nothing that cablevision could offer me to stay.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

Not around here

I wish my house was near any fiber service. I have a choice of Comcast or wireless. Qwest supposedly has DSL service available in the area but doesn't want to sell it.

Comcast seems to always have issues with noise on their line which causes slow downs and packet loss. DSL has distance issues where either I can get it but just barely so have lower speeds and the occasional disconnect or cannot get it at all.

I haven't tried wireless service but it in theory has more issues than DSL or cable.

Snookybear
@isdn.net

1 edit

Snookybear

Anon

FTTH

This is very annoying. Homes that have excellent bandwidth get Fiber; yet those of us on below par dialup gave nothing but expensive satellite as an option, it is not very reliable either. Options are welcome.