<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: Internet access in Japan (was Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:<BR>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:<BR>
> > Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should<BR>
> > be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like<BR>
> > should be eager to offer it; but don't.<BR>
><BR>
> Well, Verizon seems to be making heavy bets on replacing significant<BR>
> chunks of old copper plant with FTTH. Here's a recent FiOS announcement:<BR>
><BR>
> Linkname: Verizon discovers symmetry, offers 20/20 symmetrical FiOS<BR>
> service URL:<BR>
> <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071023-verizon-discovers-symmetry-of">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071023-verizon-discovers-symmetry-of</A><BR>
>fers-2020-symmetrical-fios-service.html<BR>
<BR>
While probably more "good" than "bad", it is my understanding that when<BR>
Verizon (and others) provide FTTH (fiber to the home) they "cut" or<BR>
physically disconnect all other connections to that residence..... so much<BR>
for any "choice"...<BR>
<BR>
Exactly. And because they installed fiber, the FCC has ruled that they do not have to provide unbundled network elements to competitors.<BR>
<BR>
I expect that when you look at the population of broadband users, it is only a tiny percentage that really need fiber to their residence.<BR>
<BR>
Let's remember that one of the main reasons that broadband displaced dial up was that it is always available and does not interfer with phone service.<BR>
<BR>
- R.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>