This is not your father's "tinkle and drip"

In response to "Fee Fi Fo FiOS"

Anyway, one of the primary reasons why IPTV offerings like AT&T are much less to implement is because they do not necessarily utilize fiber on the last mile. They use the existing copper. Of course, there are arguments that favor the use of existing copper from the crossbox to the prem, especially in newer neighborhoods that are already built out where the telecoms could reach some objection from either the city or the HOAs for digging up yards to place new F2 cable and fiber drops.

If Verizon (VZ) does go to BPON and eventually to GPON, expect it to only be in the newer (read between the lines: affluent) areas. In order for a fiber to the premise (FTTP) service to be truly successful, the fiber drop has to be laid before the concrete driveways and landscaping and that provisions can be made in the house for a clean installation of the ONT (Optical Network Termination). OK, now I found a 2003 VZ public presentation where they are talking about a "full build" of FTTP service to "greenfield" areas (new areas of development that were formerly agricultural). Qwest has already deployed FTTP to two greenfield areas, one in Colorado and one in Utah.

In existing areas, VZ plans to overlay existing copper with fiber and they will transition customers to FTTP over time. I still think that VZ is going to run into problems with certain cities, especially those that are opposing VZs petition and lobbying for national video franchise. The diagram on page 11 of the document does a pretty good job of explaining what will happen in the overlap situations, where a fiber drop will be laid and an ONT placed at the home as there is a demand for it.

I continue to warn about "economic redlining" which the telecoms are currently engaging in. Redlining is where advanced technology is only deployed in medium to higher income areas where the telecoms feel they will get a higher take rate for the services. The problem is that it excludes those in lower income areas (including businesses that are in those neighborhoods) from being able to receive the benefits of the service. REC has objected over the years to the practice of redlining.

Many municipalities to demand a "build-out requirement" in their franchise agreements. Build-out requirements protect the residents of their cities as it assures that new technology is spread out. Not all cities require a build-out. This build-out requirement is one of the main reasons why VZ and others want the national franchise. While REC objects to redlining, we do not object to a national franchise. The national franchise will take down the barriers of companies like VZ, AT&T and Qwest from providing video services to any customers. However, it is in the telecom's best interest as a good corporate citizen to penetrate their services into as much of a reach as possible.

Since High Speed Internet service is considered as "Title I" under the Telecom Act, it is not subject to the regulation of the franchise authority (city). However, the city can hamper efforts by placing restrictions, etc. on cable construction and pole attachments. However, it is not in a city's best interest to do that as they will then be perceived as "stalling progress".

REC is currently located in Qwest territory in a city without a video franchise and in a "lower end" neighborhood. We aren't getting anything more than CO-based DSL for quite awhile.

For those in classic Pac/Nevada Bell, Ameritech, SBC and eventually BellSouth areas, expect to see IPTV services in your area before your Verizon neighbors see anything as long as AT&T commits to an aggressive build-out schedule similar to FiOS.