dslreports logo
 story category
Telcos Still Balk at DSL to Fiber Upgrade Costs
Most Sticking With Fiber to the Node
DSL continues to be the dominant broadband technology globally, and new report from ABI Research notes that telcos are still balking when it comes to upgrading those aging copper lines to fiber. Most telcos are generally following AT&T's lead and investing in less costly fiber to the node options, even if that means they're competitively incapable of keeping pace with cable's top speeds. The study (which avoids citing a lack of competition as a primary reason for lagging upgrades) notes that telcos are still generally only interested in running pure fiber if they can get government subsidies for doing so, something that's more common in Western Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Not so coincidentally, another new ABI report notes cable broadband is expected to see significant upcoming growth.
view:
topics flat nest 

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

When is it..

..more cost efficient to deploy fiber than it is for copper?

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

1 recommendation

maartena

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

said by SimbaSeven:

..more cost efficient to deploy fiber than it is for copper?

From a financial point of view, copper is going to be cheaper for quite some time to come.

The United States, Canada and Chili are the three biggest suppliers worldwide of copper, and all three are in stable regions. Even if Chili goes downhill in stability, the U.S. and Canada are completely self sufficient in copper.... which also makes it relatively cheap.

However, to remain relevant, and to be able to offer competition on today's internet market, fiber is the only way to go.

Verizon off-set some of the costs by going with high installation costs when they first deployed it, something like $300 if I remember correctly, and other telco's could start doing the same.

The way the market is going, any telco would be wise to have at least a fiber plan ready to roll out, and wait till the market conditions are right.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

1 recommendation

coldmoon to SimbaSeven

Premium Member

to SimbaSeven
said by SimbaSeven:

..more cost efficient to deploy fiber than it is for copper?

When the ROI over time for the build-out is higher than the cost of nursing the outdated copper plant. The only thing really holding things up is the rent seeking focus the telco's have currently.

One thing to note here is that these companies better start doing a gut check because of tax-payer backlash should they continue to seek public assistance (you know - something for free)...

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

1 recommendation

nunya to SimbaSeven

MVM

to SimbaSeven
The thing you have to remembers, is that the copper is already there. It's been there. It's paid for.
Fiber, on the other hand, has to be placed.
In "greenfield" projects (new builds) it only makes sense to use fiber. From a ROI, it's been this way for over a decade.

What the telcos have found out is 1) people like wireless, and are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money for it. 2) Cable is going to clean their clocks on wireline services.
The phone companies pissed around too long with long distance (yeah, remember long distance). This shortsightedness in the 90's and early 2000's caused telecom implosion, and directly perpetuated the "dot com" implosion. While they were pissing away all their resources on LD, a service which has been rendered obsolete by technology, strides were being made in coaxial and HFC bandwidth implementations.

So, it boils down to this: the telcos and DSL have pretty much lost on the wireline side. They might win on wireless.
Some day in the near future, I envision the only wired service coming to a home will be power. Wireless is where it's at. Speeds are increasing. While "wired" will always be faster, it doesn't make sense to deploy OSP if wireless will foot the bill.
Note that the "wireless" provider may or may not be a cellular provider. It could be someone who does it better for less money, such as a WISP.

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

1 recommendation

alchav

Member

Re: When is it..

said by nunya:

The thing you have to remembers, is that the copper is already there. It's been there. It's paid for.
Fiber, on the other hand, has to be placed.

What the telcos have found out is 1) people like wireless, and are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money for it. 2) Cable is going to clean their clocks on wireline services.

So, it boils down to this: the telcos and DSL have pretty much lost on the wireline side. They might win on wireless.
Some day in the near future, I envision the only wired service coming to a home will be power. Wireless is where it's at. Speeds are increasing. While "wired" will always be faster, it doesn't make sense to deploy OSP if wireless will foot the bill.

Granted, Copper is there but it's old, AT&T Banked on that and then they found out in many cases new Copper had to be run.

People do like Wireless, because it's clean and not messy, but you lose Bandwidth and Reliability. With Wired, especially with Fiber, you have loads of Bandwidth, and it's very Consistent and Reliable. Wireless will sell, because people don't know the difference and for certain applications it's the best choice. Wired with Fiber will be the Future for Businesses and Homes.

VZGoat
@myvzw.com

VZGoat

Anon

Re: When is it..

Once again, it helps to remember that companies like Verizon are, above all else, motivated by their desire to be de-regulated.

That wish to become a de-regulated entity is what guides their decision making process.

It's not the technology that makes their hearts go "pitter-patter," but the potential for greater revenue through de-regulated data caps that drives the decision making process.

And that's why they're intentionally strangling the DSL so that it drives their customer's to the de-regulated side of the business.

Once we understand that basic motivation, it becomes the Rosetta Stone that allows us to understand Verizon's otherwise bizarre marketing decisions.

In short, in not the technology, it's the regulatory that drives the decision making process.

please
@optonline.net

please to nunya

Anon

to nunya
Before you you know all the wireless users will cry like babies!!! oh boo-hoo my wireless service is slow when the weather is really bad, boo-hoo there charging too much, boo-hoo I cant watch netflix, because I will not be able to pay my bill, because my wireless service is way too much, i need to borrow $$ to pay it
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

2 recommendations

Sammer to nunya

Member

to nunya
said by nunya:

Some day in the near future, I envision the only wired service coming to a home will be power. Wireless is where it's at.

Then you better hope your power company provides a fiber optic line along with the power cables. Wireless and fiber optics communications complement each other and the countries with the best fiber will be the countries with the world class wireless in the future. Batteries are where it's at too but I don't see the power grid being eliminated any time soon.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya

MVM

Re: When is it..

OSP is expensive to maintain and deploy. FTTT (fiber to the tower) is the way it's all going to go. Its not "if", but when.
FTTP will be a wholly unnecessary expense and liability.

You have to stop thinking "cellular" when it comes to wireless. It's not the only wireless technology out there - just ask anyone currently running a WISP.
Cellular providers are ass holes. We all know that. Pretty soon, someone will come along who can do it cheaper and faster (ex., I used to pay $175 / mo for a WATS line, today with VoIP it's $1.75). All the "services" we are concerned with basically boil down to data. As long as you can get adequate bandwidth to your end user so that they can watch Netflix, talk on the phone, and look at porn, facebook, and youtube on the interwebs - they'll be happy.

ATM, most of us "need" about 25 Mbps (give or take) to do this comfortably. The number will go up. That's a lot of bandwidth, but nothing that demands fiber.

Don't get me wrong, I hate to see wired communications go away. I've spent my entire adult working career herding electrons and photons.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

quote:
...All the "services" we are concerned with basically boil down to data. As long as you can get adequate bandwidth to your end user so that they can watch Netflix, talk on the phone, and look at porn, facebook, and youtube on the interwebs AT THE SAME TIME - they'll be happy....
There, fixed that for you
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to nunya

Member

to nunya
said by nunya:

FTTT (fiber to the tower) is the way it's all going to go.

Eventually every other house will have to be a tower or there won't be enough bandwidth.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO

nunya

MVM

Re: When is it..

That makes no sense whatsoever. There will be a glut of bandwidth.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to nunya

Premium Member

to nunya
If they had Fiber, Cable would NOT clean their clocks, in fact they have the advantage in Wireless, they could bundle Internet, TV, Phone, and Cell.

... but it would take forward thinking and investment for FUTURE gain.... something that's very Anti-American these days!

Xioden
Premium Member
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY

Xioden

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

Anything that doesn't involve a nice dividend THIS quarter is Anti-American.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

I know some companies that stay private for a reason. Oh and they grow and expand by building out using revenue from existing operations rather then BORROW money (issue stock) and end up being under the thumb of the money changers later.

Amazing, you know... long term planning... re-investing... future growth... solid profits... little debt. It's still out there but it's a dying methodology.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to KrK

Member

to KrK
said by KrK:

If they had Fiber, Cable would NOT clean their clocks, in fact they have the advantage in Wireless, they could bundle Internet, TV, Phone, and Cell.

Except some cable systems already have more "second mile" fiber deeper into neighborhoods than the telcos. In some places cable is selling fiber backhaul to wireless. It's more like the telcos needed fiber yesterday to prevent those cleaned clocks.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

Yes, they would have to upgrade and invest, but if they did so, they would immediately be in a good profitable position, especially with their wireless holdings as well.

Problem is it requires spending money NOW and reaping the benefits later. This is not the Wall Street way, anymore. Look at Craig Moffett's prognostications, for example.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to SimbaSeven

Member

to SimbaSeven
When you're thinking past the next quarter to the next quarter of a century... Then it's MUCH more cost efficient to deploy fiber than it is for copper!

PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD

PGHammer to SimbaSeven

Member

to SimbaSeven
It's cost-effective in the long (in fact, very long) term (that is, in fact, why Verizon deployed it); however, in the short and medium term, it's a capex nightmare.

Copper (in fact, any metallic cable - it's equally true of power cables) is a nightmare of constant M&R (thanks to the fact that metal suffers from corrosion and rust - fiber suffers from neither).

However, fiber-optic middleware is newer than the copper equivalents, and thus still pricey by comparison (which is why VZ's board forced the halt to FIOS deployment in new areas - the bondholders - mostly pension plans -screamed over the capex whacking) - which is why other telcos (still under horrendous margin pressure - globally) won't deploy it without government subsidies.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO

nunya

MVM

Re: When is it..

Any OSP, be it copper or fiber, will require maintenance and repair.
If it weren't for squirrels, trees, storms, and backhoes the cables would last for hundreds of years.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: When is it..

If you get water in a fiber splice case or cable it will corrode the outer layers of the individual fiber strands destroy the fiber for sending data through it. Yes it takes a while just like water in a copper cable.
Man cutting the cable is the biggest problem.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Muni broadband is an option

This is why muni broadband should be permitted in all localities. When telco does not invest in infrastructure, and cableco is absent or complicit with the status quo then the citizens should invest in their community. Don't wait for these corporations to suddenly decide that your community is profitable to upgrade; do it yourself and watch them begin to try and compete.
Terabit
join:2008-12-19

1 recommendation

Terabit

Member

Re: Muni broadband is an option

Spot on.

This is common sense but not a single Republican will go for it, as it goes against their idiotic ideology against government.

If Faux news, Rush, Beck, their 70 year old base and politicians say it's bad, then it apparently must be bad.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Muni broadband is an option

said by Terabit:

Spot on.

This is common sense but not a single Republican will go for it, as it goes against their idiotic ideology against government.

If Faux news, Rush, Beck, their 70 year old base and politicians say it's bad, then it apparently must be bad.

Resistance against unregulated Muni broadband has been a bi-partisan effort and in many states the legislatures have been near unanimous in putting strict fiscal controls on it. You can attribute this to pols being bought by the telcos & cable companies if you want, but it isn't related to party ideology.

mech1164
I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ

mech1164

Member

Re: Muni broadband is an option

said by FFH5:

said by Terabit:

Spot on.

This is common sense but not a single Republican will go for it, as it goes against their idiotic ideology against government.

If Faux news, Rush, Beck, their 70 year old base and politicians say it's bad, then it apparently must be bad.

Resistance against unregulated Muni broadband has been a bi-partisan effort and in many states the legislatures have been near unanimous in putting strict fiscal controls on it. You can attribute this to pols being bought by the telcos & cable companies if you want, but it isn't related to party ideology.

Exactly right. This won't change for sadly some time to come. How and where it will be changed is up for debate.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Resistance against unregulated Muni broadband has been a bi-partisan effort

[Cough]Lobbyists[Cough] and it has been much more heavily pushed by Republicans then Democrats, but yeah, it has been both parties.

Just as stupidity is bi-partisan.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to Terabit

Member

to Terabit
There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the parties. The fact that folks still think there is means the illusion works.

If you think most left-leaning, socialist democrat won't vote against something when a major corporate player in their district frowns, I have a bunch of LightSquared bonds that I'd like to sell you.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to Terabit

Member

to Terabit
said by Terabit:

This is common sense but not a single Republican will go for it, as it goes against their idiotic ideology against government.

Setting aside blowhards like Rush or Beck (of which the left has its fair share, e.g., Olbermann) most Republicans are not philosophically opposed to municipal broadband. My old hometown deployed free wi-fi all over the place with a GOP mayor and GOP controlled city council. We had a municipal power grid that has been in place for decades and none of the Republicans in town wanted to get rid of/privatize it.

I lean Republican and I have no problem with cities, townships, and villages deploying municipal broadband when the private market fails to deliver. I would have a serious problem with the Feds or State coming in and doing it -- it would wind up being heavy handed, not tailored to our needs, cost ten times as much, deliver half the service, and have customer service responsiveness along the lines of your local DMV.

Make it happen at the local level and few Republicans will object. Doing it at the local level also keeps it from being held hostage to political machines as tends to happen at the State or Federal level. Your only issue here is State Legislatures trying to prohibit it from happening when they receive donations from big telco/cableco, but that's a bi-partisan effort as noted elsewhere and beyond the scope of this discussion.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

This is why muni broadband should be permitted in all localities.

I don't understand why it never was... I'm not an American citizen so some of your laws are unfamiliar to me, but the community should "wire up" and then the big players should be free to either sell packages on the muni-fiber or build their own competing network.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Muni broadband is an option

said by El Quintron:

said by morbo:

This is why muni broadband should be permitted in all localities.

I don't understand why it never was... I'm not an American citizen so some of your laws are unfamiliar to me, but the community should "wire up" and then the big players should be free to either sell packages on the muni-fiber or build their own competing network.

Think of US States like Provinces in Canada. Each state has control over many of the laws within their borders. There are often peculiarities like between laws in Quebec & Ontario. So there is no uniformity between states and how they control the financial activities of local governments within their borders.

Many states control municipal spending in order to protect the citizens within their borders from the rampant corruption in local government. Corruption in government is tiered. The worst is at the local level; then state level; then the federal government. Local government is often nothing but a cesspool of cronyism; nepotism; and just plain outright fraud. And that is why states keep tight controls on municipal expenditures. And it is also why those who say just let the LOCAL elected officials decide on muni broadband don't understand the real problems of rampant local corruption that is almost universal in the US.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

Re: Muni broadband is an option

said by FFH5:

Many states control municipal spending in order to protect the citizens within their borders from the rampant corruption in local government. Corruption in government is tiered. The worst is at the local level; then state level; then the federal government. Local government is often nothing but a cesspool of cronyism; nepotism; and just plain outright fraud. And that is why states keep tight controls on municipal expenditures. And it is also why those who say just let the LOCAL elected officials decide on muni broadband don't understand the real problems of rampant local corruption that is almost universal in the US.

No to turn this into a political slugfest, but this is clearly a case of the gov't siding with telcos/cablecos who have no business in municipal politics.

Corruption is a smokescreen, as it applies to this situation.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q to El Quintron

Premium Member

to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

said by morbo:

This is why muni broadband should be permitted in all localities.

I don't understand why it never was... I'm not an American citizen so some of your laws are unfamiliar to me, but the community should "wire up" and then the big players should be free to either sell packages on the muni-fiber or build their own competing network.

That would be ideal, but here in America you're not going to get that, because the corporations have too much lobbying power, and if they can help it will not allow any form of network to be built with the thought in mind of making a truly competitive market.

What I think would be the best idea is if the federal government used tax payer funds to build out FTTP everywhere, and then once complete sold that network to private companies with the restrictions of upon buying the network you cannot block any competitor from using it, must pay the price it completely costs to build the amount of area they buy (so tax payer funds can be returned to the tax payers) and will not be able to in any way implement any policies in regards to network management, including overages on caps. (and by this I mainly mean they can't in any way shape or form put policies in place that are anti-competitive) My hope with this network would be that someone buy it out as a reseller and just keeps their hands off what the 3rd party companies are doing, and not compete with them.

Matt

please
@optonline.net

please to morbo

Anon

to morbo
I totally agree, if cable and telco companies, dont want there wireline networks anymore, than communities should be able to build a network, with out these huge companies taking these communites to court to fight a potential build

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to morbo

Member

to morbo
"This is why muni broadband should be permitted in all localities."

So they can piss away our money like crazy. Then when it comes time to pay the bills they will lay off employees to cut costs AND expand their services to compete with private business.

“We’ve had the pleasure of spending like a drunken sailor, but now it’s time to sober up” – Harold DePriest (President of EPB)

They are in the process of expanding in to other areas (some are already live) like PC repair/Virus removal, Hosted PBX, Alarm systems, home automation, and more. Where do you draw the line? Since when was it government's job to run private business out of business?

••••••
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

duplicity...

....all while raking in record profits....

Milliwatt
join:2010-01-26
Hotchkiss, CO

Milliwatt

Member

Open Carrier Access

I still favor publicly owned fiber. Just as with freight carriers and the public highway system, public fiber (open carrier access) would allow multiple carriers to access a common fiber to the benefit of the public. This is especially important in rural to suburban environments.

»www.co-eaglenet.net/

The way things are now, the carriers control the fiber and monopolize who has access even though fiber's capacity to carry data is nearly infinite. To make matters worse, telcos often expand their fiber systems using pubic money then block access to the fiber by others.

»www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 12-01-30

••••••
Gardener
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
Burnaby, BC
·TELUS

Gardener

Premium Member

Why not use the copper

The "aging copper lines" in our neighborhood are only 30 years old, which is well short of their expected lifespan. So we're stuck with FTTN and 25/3 Mbps. I am sure that this will seem downright quaint in a decade or so (after all, twelve years ago I was still using dial-up) but for now it is quite adequate. Once there is a perceived need for, say, symmetric gigabit service, carriers will be scrambling to run fiber to our door. In the meantime, why not get more use out of the existing copper infrastructure?
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Reality

"Underserved" customers aren't willing to subscribe to existing broadband offerings at existing urban prices in sufficient numbers to sustain the service.

Why then, would we expect telco to invest even more money, to deploy new wired services?

LTE and other wireless technologies are much more cost-effective to deploy in low-density settings; you don't have to wire miles and miles of country road to pass a few houses that won't buy your service.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Fiber to the None

Had to do a quick double take there at the title....
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

all is not equal or equitable..

the 3 big telcos left; at&t, verizon and centurytel all have fiber optics in their backbones (otherwise it would be incredibly unprofitable to run their type of business).

the rewiring of the last mile is very costly when your talking about thousands upon thousands of miles of fiber optic cable, nodes (which do generally REQUIRE electricity and requisite battery backups). this can be cost prohibitive however.. what we know from the Verizon deployment is they spent about $$ 25 - 35 BILLION dollars to cherry pick the most profitable markets primarily in the NORTHEAST and basically said to hell with the rest (of their footprint). Although this didn't stop them from expanding their footprint into Texas (of all places). This was political payback for the GOP administration for allowing them to run amok with jettisoning many copper states to frontier & fairpoint..

AT&T gobbled up Bell South promising many greenbuilds of Fiber only for that to be a fantasy and many markets in the south abandoned from ever getting U-Verse, let alone upgraded DSL or Fiber.. not long after that, they try to pull another stunt with a wireless anti-competition grab for T-Mobile-- after breaking many conditions of the 2006 Bell South Merger..

Qwest/Century tell.. oh, don't get me started.. if you want broadband.. MOVE OUT OF THE SOUTHWEST FOR GOD DAMN SAKE!!! IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

LightS

Premium Member

Re: all is not equal or equitable..

I don't understand why you say "Texas (of all places)"?

The reason it was deployed to Texas is because in the DFW area, there is a huge amount of ISP competition. Time Warner Cable, Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Suddenlink, WindStream, etc are all prevalent all over. I'm sure I missed quite a few, but it's quite common.

As far as your last statement - I think broadband should be available everywhere. Maybe not yet - It's only really been common for what, the last 15-20 years? However, in the future, I expect it to be like electricity - available everywhere. It should be available everywhere, period. You should not have to decide where to live or search for a house based upon the availability of HSI, period. Profitable or not, I think that everyone should have access to the internet.

I don't know how much you've traveled - I'm assuming not a lot - but there are broadband holes EVERYWHERE. Not just the SW - they are everywhere. EVERY. SINGLE. STATE.
tanzam75
join:2012-07-19

tanzam75

Member

Re: all is not equal or equitable..

said by LightS:

I don't understand why you say "Texas (of all places)"?

The reason it was deployed to Texas is because in the DFW area, there is a huge amount of ISP competition. Time Warner Cable, Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Suddenlink, WindStream, etc are all prevalent all over. I'm sure I missed quite a few, but it's quite common.

Texas has a favorable regulatory environment. They were handing out statewide franchises like cotton candy. Compare to the arduous negotiations that Verizon had to go through in the northeast.

Also, when Verizon did a test deployment in Texas, they discovered higher take rates than elsewhere in their FiOS network. So they directed more of their investment dollars there for the FiOS buildout.

noc007
join:2002-06-18
Cumming, GA

noc007

Member

Better not be talking about the US

"telcos are still generally only interested in running pure fiber if they can get government subsidies for doing so"

I hope they're not talking about the US. We already gave them tax breaks which they promptly took those billions ($200 billion by some estimates) and stuffed their pockets with it.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

1 recommendation

WhatNow

Premium Member

Your neighborhood could build their own FTTH

A neighborhood could get together and build their own fiber network. I doubt if you got a realistic bid you could get enough neighbors to front you the money to build the system. That is the problem everybody wants someone else to take the risk. As great as everybody says Verizon Fios is I think the take rate in the areas it is available is around 30 percent. Someone can give me better figures. That is the problem everybody says they want it but then they will not buy it.
The reason the Telcos had total copper phone coverage for phones was they were a monopoly. The reason the Bell reagions were so much better then other areas was Long Distance. LD paid for a lot improvements that other telcos did not have and those companies were more rural.

That will not happen again.