Demand More From Your Copper

D3 wrote in with a submission about fiber to the home, or the lack of it, and the reasons behind this, and ways to work around the Bells to provide high-speed access despite them. A pretty decent article, which actually goes beyond the Baby Bell PR-speak that deregulation is the solution to everything. Maybe at some point state and Federal regulators will realize that the Bells are the problem, not the solution.

Comments

Change in business model required!

[Aviancer]

The article points out that the major reason the bells (er, bell; hasn't SBC bought all the others yet?) don't want to do this is because they are required to lease out the lines to competitors.

So why not swap business models and become a service provider to the "competitors" instead of "end users." This gives you the incentive to build the infrastructure.

Re:Why would we want it?

[stratjakt]

>> Other than a huge File Sharing Node, why would we want fiber?

Because competition for the cable monopolies is a Good Thing (tm).

Besides, this article is about copper, and how all the copper in the ground can still be utilized to do what fiber could.

Re:Just a question

[johnny cashed]

are you kidding? The phone system could be used to copy music.

Re:Why would we want it?

[mistcat]

I can tell you why I would want it. I work for the government as a contractor processing satellite data. The data files are HUGE, routinely over 250 megs a file, with 20+ files a day. A cable modem or dsl line simply doesn't have enough bandwidth for me to work from home effectively. Sure I can SSH into a box at work or whatever, but after all the tcp wrappers, ipchains, dns, etc, there is a noticeable lag when I work with things in X-windows. I don't know what minority of the tech population is also in my shoes, but for us fiber to the home would be great, and something I'd be willing to pay a premium for.

Re:Cost Cost Cost

[swb]

Also, DSL cannot run over fiber, so the most common low-cost solution is eliminated by fiber to the home.

DSL isn't a layer 2 encoding, its a layer 1 transmission technology. Saying it doesn't work on fiber is like saying I can't use a boat in the desert. It's true, but the boat isn't needed in the desert.

Fiber's sexy, but copper is cheap and in place

[roderickm]

Let's run through the typical "last mile" options:

• Copper pairs - aging, installed almost everywhere, with metropolitan runs below fifteen thousand feet or so supporting some form of DSL. Great for switched voice (POTS), not bad for midrange bandwidth data (DSL), not a lot of lang-term future possibility, but cheap and already installed.
  
• Coax cable - Almost exclusively controlled by cable television companies, more expensive than a simple copper pair but cheap enough to deliver to all but the most rural areas. Much greater bandwidth than POTS or DSL, also with low latency well-suited to voice or video calls.
  
• Satellite - Reaches nearly everyone in North American than can see the southern sky, nearly all fixed cost structure, and low marginal cost to add a user/subscriber. High latency, but huge bandwidth well-suited to broadcasting the same material to all users.
  

This article brings to light the fact that fiber to the curb just isn't practical now. My wife works for a company that attempted a speculative fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) build for a neighborhood in Colorado, and the project (among other factors) sent her employer into Chapter 11. FTTC is sexy, yes, but it's just not within economic reach yet.

I've said for a couple years now that cable companies truly have the broadband advantage, but they waste their bandwidth to the curb by competing for television subscriptions. The massive installed base of coax has a much greater bandwidth than your POTS copper pair, but rarely is it used to its full potential.

Owners of huge cable plants will eventually let television delivery fall to satellite deliver (high latency, high broadcast bandwidth) while your everyday coax cable will be more used for low-latency, highly interactive bandwidth like voice and data. Satellite for broadcast, cable for interactive voice/video/data services, and let the POTS pairs finish off their remaining useful life.

If more folks would get reasonable about the realistic uses for fiber (long haul, high bandwidth aggregation circuits) by reading salient articles like this one, we'd more quickly be able to enjoy true broadband in many forms of delivery. It's just going to take more people in decision-making positions that realize the appropriate use of the technologies we have at hand.

Local cost to the Last Mile

[rearden]

One of the things often overlooked in the last mile debate is the effects that laying large amounts of Copper/Fiber/Etc in a local area. Not only are there cost associated with physically laying the cable but also longterm cost carried by the municipalities.

One of the biggest problems here in Atlanta is the condition of the roads and the sewer system. Now, on the surface this may seem to not correlate to the laying cable but quite the opposite is true. Recently our new Mayor/ Admin team hired several consultants to review the condidtions of the roads (which anyone here can tell you are horrible) and to find out why our sewer upgade project is so far behind. The reason... the massive amount of incorrectly laid, documented or bad road repair work done during the .Com boom from laying cable. In essence all the road paches are breaking up and roads built to last 10 to 20 years are failing after only 3-7.

The sewer and water project are held up by many problems, but a major one is the fact that as they go to lay new pipe they are find cable bundles that are unlabled and even if they do find out who owns them they dont know who controlls them any longer as many companies are bankrupt or in reorganization.

The question becomes who has to bear the burden of cost of resolving the problems and questions? Do the taxpayers of a given town have to carry the cost of Big Business run amok laying miles of Fiber and Copper all over towns with little the local goverments can do to stop them?

One of the little known provisions of the Telco Act of 1996 was that local goverments HAD TO give access/ right of way to new cable runs. For months the streets here in Atlanta were torn up and traffic was snarled- and there was nothing the City/ State could really do because each time they took action the FCC or courts would stop them. In fact several cable pull sites were left abandoned after the patron companies had long gone bankrupt, leaving the city/ taxpayers with the burden of doing road repair and close up work.

So, while there are many options out there for the last mile, and Fiber or anyother may seem good often overlooked is the cost to the local infrastructure and municipalites.

Just my 2 cents on a big topic with little results!