From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   >"Stephen Sprunk"  wrote:   
   >>On 01-Jul-14 16:03, conklin wrote:   
   >>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
      
   >>>>Do you really believe there's a business case for building a fiber   
   >>>>plant in a rural area?   
      
   >>>As the copper wire is abandoned everywhere, ...   
      
   >>Copper isn't being "abandoned" anywhere; it is quite valuable.   
      
   >Its use for telephone service is being abandoned everywhere.   
      
   Oh, for heaven's sake, George: There are selected places in which Baby   
   Bells and ex-GTE (which absolutely DOES NOT apply to rural telephone   
   coops nor exchanges that never were Bell nor GTE) are trying to get out   
   of providing a traditional telephone switch in a central office serving   
   copper loops to subscriber premisis. This is for regulatory reasons as   
   they are required to provide wholesale rates to competitors who access   
   the historic telephone plant. There are a handful of instances in which   
   state public utility commissions have gone along with this, and FCC is   
   always threatening to eliminate federal mandates.   
      
   It's going to be a very long time before it happens in a majority   
   of Baby Bell exchanges.   
      
   Non-Bell exchanges are regulated differently and, with some exceptions   
   (like former GTE exchanges), are not subject to wholesale rates and   
   competition. They have no regulatory incentive to abandon copper.   
      
   If the copper pair is in good condition, it's still useful for data and   
   voice needs. Cable distributors providing broadband manage to do it   
   on coax, which is ancient wiring technology too.   
      
   btw, there are two different fiber models. I dunno why you were saying you   
   have "FiOS" (the i is lower case), which is Verizon's marketing term.   
   We all know that Verizon was rolling out FiOS slowly and pretty much   
   stopped at some point, due to its incredible expense. Your notion that   
   fiber is cost effective to install is goofy.   
      
   FiOS is "fiber to the premisis"; they have fiber on the pole line and   
   then install a fiber drop to the building and have some sort of terminal   
   on the outside of the building with battery that lasts for a brief   
   period but not the eight to twenty-four hours that battery would have   
   lasted at the central office.   
      
   AT&T's Uverse is "fiber to the node", in which AT&T builds nodes to   
   serve a couple dozen to a hundred buildings but continues to use a   
   portion of the copper loop between the node and the pole line, then   
   the original drop between the pole line and the premisis.   
      
   In a city or suburban area, the drop may be 20 to 40 feet from the pole   
   line, but in a rural area, you're talking about a significant distance,   
   and I have no idea why any rural co-op, no matter how much subsidy it   
   received, would replace anybody's drop with fiber. So between not being   
   in a Verizon area and being in a rural area, I have no idea why you would   
   state that you have FiOS, although maybe Verizon is providing some support   
   to rural co-ops. In a rural area, a fiber drop installation would cost   
   more than several years of gross revenue they'd receive from the subscriber,   
   so that's just not going to happen unless the subscriber has a need for   
   it and pays up front. I don't really understand how maintaining copper   
   drops are affordable in rural areas.   
      
   Given that rural telephone and electric co-ops receive monies for phone   
   and data from the Universal Service Fund and grant monies for electric from   
   the farm bill (which pay for maintenance and installation of the physical   
   plant with respect to the pole line, which also benefits telephone), your   
   idea that rural telephone co-ops don't receive massive subsidy is absurd.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)