FTTP - A US perspective

Hello!

I wanted to ask the community why they believe providers such as Verizon are offering FTTP as standard in parts of the US now ($100-120pcm will buy you a 75/75 symmetrical connection with phone & TV), yet BT is still struggling to roll out FTTC to most of the country?

Funnily enough, most of the fibre optic cabling comes via overhead wires with FIOS. I don't believe BT's FTTP is distributed in the same way, but rather underground cabling? Why is this method preferred over cables above ground?

Another thing to add, traffic shaping really hasn't caught on in the US, in stark contrast to the UK where QoS - even website blocking (scandalous, would never fly in the US) - is utilised widely. This means a FIOS user can download what they want, whenever they want, at full speeds, for as long as they want.

Just my two pence on how I feel the UK is getting left behind compared to the US in providing high speed internet services.

On Verizon's internet speeds - read

http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-g...
http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observati...

On Fios - read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-gre...

On this map, with only FTTP selected (for all providers), US coverage looks a bit sparse as at 31/12/13. Nice price as well.

Interesting maps. I'm lucky enough to live in one of the areas covered by FTTP. Ironic that Silicon Valley has hardly any FTTP connections available. That must suck. I don't believe Google Fibre is even available there either.

Verizon could definitely improve with regards to their peering with Netflix CDN's. Though, we all know this is political to force Netflix to pay for content delivery. Unfortunately it looks like net neutrality is being eroded here.

I have a FIOS connection, btw, and I continue to remain hugely impressed by it. I do wish they offered a static rather than sticky IP, but what can you do? :/

Silicon Valley is planned by Google https://fiber.google.com/newcities/

Verizon get to keep their FTTP network all to themselves which helps them, along with that they were absolutely lambasted for deploying FTTP, but got on with it and are retiring copper where possible.

BT can't retire copper in many areas as our regulators are obsessed with the view that LLU is some panacea that solves everything.

BT are required to delivery open access to any networks they build, further eroding profit margins.

Thanks to being brought up on a diet of cross-subsidised and/or loss making LLU UK consumers are tighter than a camel's backside in a sandstorm when it comes to paying for broadband.

People who will happily pay £60 a month for TV whinge about paying more than a few £ a month for broadband and as a result the broadband is kept cheap and [censored] with a large part of its costs hidden in line rental by the big players.

Also worth noting we only have <50% cable coverage, and the incumbent has zero interest in competing with the cable company on performance. They have a captive audience in about half the country so there's absolutely no drive to spend a penny more on network than they have to. Football rights are expensive, after all.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Aug-14 17:43:38)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Verizon get to keep their FTTP network all to themselves which helps them, along with that they were absolutely lambasted for deploying FTTP, but got on with it and are retiring copper where possible.

BT can't retire copper in many areas as our regulators are obsessed with the view that LLU is some panacea that solves everything.

BT are required to delivery open access to any networks they build, further eroding profit margins.

Thanks to being brought up on a diet of cross-subsidised and/or loss making LLU UK consumers are tighter than a camel's backside in a sandstorm when it comes to paying for broadband.

People who will happily pay £60 a month for TV whinge about paying more than a few £ a month for broadband and as a result the broadband is kept cheap and [censored] with a large part of its costs hidden in line rental by the big players.

Also worth noting we only have <50% cable coverage, and the incumbent has zero interest in competing with the cable company on performance. They have a captive audience in about half the country so there's absolutely no drive to spend a penny more on network than they have to. Football rights are expensive, after all.

Great post.

I wanted to ask the community why they believe providers such as Verizon are offering FTTP as standard in parts of the US now ($100-120pcm will buy you a 75/75 symmetrical connection with phone & TV), yet BT is still struggling to roll out FTTC to most of the country?

Er, our infrastructure, water, drainage etc., was built many decades before the US.

Funnily enough, most of the fibre optic cabling comes via overhead wires with FIOS. I don't believe BT's FTTP is distributed in the same way, but rather underground cabling? Why is this method preferred over cables above ground?

a) Poles are ugly
b) Poles fall down in heavy weather/traffic accidents causing a loss of all services.

Another thing to add, traffic shaping really hasn't caught on in the US, in stark contrast to the UK where QoS - even website blocking (scandalous, would never fly in the US) - is utilised widely. This means a FIOS user can download what they want, whenever they want, at full speeds, for as long as they want.

.........with NSA watching.. Heard of Snowden?

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Aug-14 18:09:13)

a) Poles are ugly

Yet BT also uses poles to deliver phone lines. So, er...

b) Poles fall down in heavy weather/traffic accidents causing a loss of all services.

Brits (myself as one) don't understand the concept of 'heavy weather'. When you've experienced some of the extreme weather that we get here then you can talk about such weather being a factor IMO.

Ironically, I've found that our fibre (delivered by pole) has withstood both a hurricane (the tree in the back garden didn't unfortunately) and New England winter storms.