16% of US Homes Eligible for Fiber

Rofl-Mic-Lofl

For Whom The Bell Trolls
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
23,377
Eighteen million US homes are now eligible for fiber, with almost all of that development being in the past seven years. The bad news is that development is now slowing.
"The highest early annual growth rate for copper was 76 percent and 125 percent for coax" within its first decade, but fiber-to-the-home has already hit 250 percent year-over-year growth rates.
 
What sort of speed does US fibre broadband offer? Also, what's the latest on the Google's "look at what we can do" 1000mbps roll out they were on about?
Fibre in thw UK is on the grow fast as well, but BT are slow on the uptake, which is frustrating.
 
In Canada, ISPs think fiber is something their doctor's are recommending to prevent prostate cancer.
 
What sort of speed does US fibre broadband offer? Also, what's the latest on the Google's "look at what we can do" 1000mbps roll out they were on about?
Fibre in thw UK is on the grow fast as well, but BT are slow on the uptake, which is frustrating.

The fastest affordable fiber I have seen is verizon 50mb, but with comcast you can get 50mb also over coax.

The only option I have where I live is dial up or comcast.
 
The little town I live in will finish up laying fiber in July. Price is $58 for 50 Mbps up and down.
 
There's no chance Qwest will roll out FTTC and very little chance COX will even fix their coax in older neighborhoods. So most of Arizona is out of that 16%. :(
 
Shaw offers 100Mbps up here in some areas (cable co) but you only get 5 up and it's $150/mth.
 
lets see, large city, fairly high density of homes to area, makes perfect sense to roll out fiber.

werps.. ain't going to happen, Gestapo of a city government wants a piece of everything, as a result at best we get AT&T U-Verse *sigh*
 
And that number is low because of assholes like Verizon who refuses to come into Baltimore.

Let alone you can not get fiber in most (if not all) apartment complexes.

Because of these two things I am stuck with craptacular Comcast. The only alternative being DSL and we all know that by some strange act of god that actually sucks more than Comcast.
 
Pewaukee WI here.

Time warner cable, we have the 7mb down plan, but speeds vary from 3mb-20mb all the fucking time.

Pay $70/mo.

Garbage.
 
Don't think fiber to the home is that important for the capacity/performance. For example, here you can get 100/10Mb for $56 a month over copper/coax in many places. Of course this is a little more expensive than fiber to the home, which is about $38/mo for 100/10Mb. But then you have to add the cost of running fiber to your home..
 
I got fios lines running through 3 of the connecting roads near my apartment building, including the ones its on. But I haven't seen a fiber truck since last year when they were wiring up all the rich houses. Half of the issue is all these apartment buildings are from the 1970s and the property manager doesn't want to do jack about it.

That number 18% is total bullshit, just a number so verizon executives can look at and say, we were really successful, now lets pull out and charge more for 3g data plans.
 
Verizon FIOS here. 25/25 service for about $42 a month. Service has been very reliable, more so than Comcast ever was.
 
Well, I'm in the 86% group. There is no way AT&T is gonna provide me with fiber to the home. U-verse is as close as it comes and I will never do business with AT&T anyway
 
id run a server and encrypt it so they didnt know it was coming from me! run it straight as a torrent box and even host sites ! lol pirate FTW
 
No fiber here, but both to the north and the south of us with no plans to expand into my area. I'm screwed!
 
What sort of speed does US fibre broadband offer? Also, what's the latest on the Google's "look at what we can do" 1000mbps roll out they were on about?
Fibre in thw UK is on the grow fast as well, but BT are slow on the uptake, which is frustrating.

The fastest affordable fiber I have seen is verizon 50mb, but with comcast you can get 50mb also over coax.

The only option I have where I live is dial up or comcast.

Ah right, the same as the UK it would seem with Virgin's fibre. I want BT to hurry up, UK sucks for broadband. I'm stuck with 7 down and 0.3 up......
 
Got Verizon FiOS 25mb/15 for $34.99 and its a heck of alot more reliable that Charter cable
 
I recently bumped to 50/6 (50 Mbps down/6 Mbps up) with Cox and I've been quite happy ever since.

The only downside (if there was one) is the price: $120/month.

Having said that, however...

Just after their service went live in my area, they offered the 50 Mbps package at a reduced rate for 12 months to get people using it - $69.99 a month! Hell yeah I pounced on it. Also, since I didn't have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem at that time, and their offer letter (company letterhead mailing) stated they would rent me a modem for $10/month, I took that too but it was a little issue because they tried to skirt out of the rentals.

But I stood my ground, told them I'd been a good customer for many years (true), that their own offer letter for the upgrade said the modem could be rented (true), and that if they didn't honor their own offer I'd cancel everything with them and move on to another provider (true).

They caved and rented me the modem so, now I have a solid 50 Mbps connection for $79.99 a month, and I actually pull 55-60 Mbps most of the time on sustained downloads. Grabbed the Ubuntu 10.04 Release Candidate disc from the anl.gov mirror at 6.6MB/s sustained, took almost no time at all. :)

$120/month for this ain't worth it, but as I was paying $64.99 for the 18 Mbps package, and they offered me the 50 Mbps for a full year at the same price, how could I not take them up on it?
 
would be nice if cox offered a faster upload i'm still hoping fios is where i am soon :(
 
I think a lot of people focus too much on the upload side of things. Pretty much every single ISP on the planet has a clause someplace in their TOS or AUP that says you're not supposed to use your connection(s) for serving purposes (and we all know exactly what I'm talking about here, no need to get that in-depth with it).

Considering that people want to acquire stuff more than they want to share it, the still practical asynchronous model of faster downloads coupled with somewhat fast upload capacity is going to be around for a long time. Synchronous connections are nice but, I doubt 95% of home users would ever have need of such service/speeds.

If they do, they know it and they can pay more for it, aka a business circuit.
 
I would drop Comcast & get fiber in a heartbeat if it was available in my area. We just have Comcast or dsl
 
My immediate neighborhood will NEVER see the light of Fiber to the home, I truly do wish it was a possibility. My DSL line is absolutely stable, but slow as hell, 3MB/386KB is minuscule for what I pay a month. Comcast is an option, but their infrastructure in this area is downright miserable. Imagine getting a line drop every ten minutes and then waiting four minutes for the modem to reconnect. Just not even worth paying for.

I truly envy the city that gets chosen for Google's Fiber project, even so far as to wish that I could move there JUST for the service.
 
Are any of you actually able to reach your advertised speeds? ;)

And for how long?
 
I still don't understand the point of having 20mbit fiber

Me neither. If you're going to have fiber, you should make sure it exceeds that capacity of other, simpler technologies. 100Mb or above should be the minimum for fiber.
 
Back
Top