Does FTTH Lead to Economic Growth?

If fiber to the home could show clearly that it boosts service provider revenue and reduces cost, more observers would be unabashed supporters. But large-scale deployments in the United States are relatively ambiguous, one might argue. Verizon has the overwhelming footprint and much of the total industry experience, and observers still cannot agree on whether FiOS has been a clear success or not.

Likewise, nearly everybody seems to believe that fiber to the home is required for economic development. But even there, the impact is hard to discern. David Russell at Calix tried to test the hypothesis, looking at communities where FTTH had been in place for at least five years, was deployed ubiquitously and was deployed at a regional commercial center.

Based on what is available today (data through 2008) Russell looked at the growth between 2004 and 2008 and compared the results from the towns served by FTTH with the rest of their states. It turns out that of the five (Bristol, Va./Bristol, Tenn.; Dalton, Ga.; Jackson, Tenn.; Reedsburg, Wisc.; and Windom, Minn.) only three did better in business creation than other towns in their state. In both Dalton and Reedsburg, business creation trailed other areas of Georgia and Wisconsin, respectively.

When it came to job creation, only Bristol and Dalton did better than other towns in their states. But that's not to say they added jobs. Bristol actually lost three percent of jobs and Dalton nine percent.

So only the Bristol area did better than the rest of its state (Virginia) in both job and business creation.

Unfortunately, when economic data is available for the 2008 to 2010, the data isn't likely to improve, given the effects of the Great Recession of 2008. So it is likely to remain more a matter of faith, not fact, that FTTH indeed clearly underpins economic growth.

FTTH's Benefits Are Not Obvious

So long, broadband duopoly?

Analysts at the Federal Communications Commission appear to agree with forecasts that project 90 percent of the U.S. population is likely to have access to broadband networks capable of peak download speeds in excess of 50 Mbps as cable systems upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0. See http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan.

But FCC analysts also estimate that about 15 percent of the U.S. population is likely to be able to choose between two providers, both cable a telco. At first glance, this would seem to be a problem for most telcos other than Verizon.

If in fact a large percentage of the U.S. broadband customer base does decide to buy 50-Mbps services, or even faster services, many telcos are going to be at a huge disadvantage, if one assumes broadband access will be the foundation service for most telcos.

As necessity typically is the mother of invention, one wonders whether ways of using fiber-to-neighborhood networks will be capable of upgrading to speeds not possible so far, much as cable operators are working on new ways to boost their own broadband speeds. One should not discount the possibility, or the incentives for suppliers to come up with such solutions.

On the other hand, "headline" speeds, as important as they are for marketing purposes, might not necessarily correspond to consumer buying preferences in the near term, or even in the medium term. So far, few U.S. consumers have decided 50 Mbps access services were valuable enough to buy them, where such services are available.

If that remains the case, services offering 20 Mbps or 25 Mbps might be good enough, at least for the medium term, and urban fiber-to-neighborhood networks ought to be able to reach 40 Mbps, as Qwest already offers in Denver, for example.

Telcos with lower density serving areas and longer loop lengths will find it rather expensive to match that sort of speed using any hybrid network (fiber distribution, copper access). But much might hinge on the actual state of end user demand (willingness to pay).

Nor should observers think there is no more speed that can be wrung out of all-copper access networks. A reasonable way of putting matters is that additional copper pairs can be bonded to achieve higher speeds. There are technical issues, of course, ranging from availability of requisite pairs in existing cable, and interference issues within cables. But researchers already are working on ways to create higher-speed circuits by using more extensive bonding.

Oddly enough, the dwindling number of fixed-line voice circuits actually helps to some extent, as it frees up additional copper pairs, in some cases. It isn't easy, but sometimes extensive pair bonding will prove workable. Beyond that, the costs of fiber-to-customer infrastructure continue to improve, especially where either aerial plant or underground conduit are in place.

So it is not clear that cable's current advantages are of a permanent nature. That might be the case, in some areas and perhaps in many areas. But telco executives have powerful incentives not to concede the long-term future.

And since all observers now agree that the goal of 100 Mbps, within a decade, is the aspirational target the market likely will support, technologists and business planners will be looking at any number of solutions. At one level, the issue is technological: how can it be done? At an equally important level, the issue is how to match investment to expected revenues.

One might argue that with multiple 4G wireless networks and growing use of mobile devices, actual end user demand at fixed locations might not grow as rapidly as some forecast. A large number of fast, but not super-fast connections--both mobile and fixed--might well prove quite workable.

That doesn't mean telco planners can avoid the work of figuring how to pay for and build networks running up to 100 Mbps at some medium term point in the future. But the scaling might wind up being more graceful than people sometimes assume.

So long, broadband duopoly?

BT Has Same Cost Problem as AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink

BT has said that there is a commercial case for it to upgrade about two thirds of its national network to fiber-to-the-cabinet and fiber-to-the-premises networks. The rest of the country, though, is too sparsely populated to justify wholly private investment, BT insists.

People sometimes forget how sensitive infrastructure costs are to the vagaries of population density, terrain, soil composition and duct or pole access. In the United States, as elsewhere, loop length (distance from customer location to the nearest central office) is inversely proportional to population density. So are capital requirements. The cost of serving the last 10 percent of customers is extraordinarily high compared to the cost of reaching the most-dense 30 percent of locations (click on image for larger view).

Whitehall invites broadband subsidy goldrush • The Register:

After 10 Years of Big Bandwidth, Where are the New Apps?

After a decade of fiber-to-the-home access, what do service providers have to show for it? Not as much as you might think, suggests Benoît Felten, Yankee Group principal analyst.

"Surprisingly perhaps, considering the decade’s worth of experience some Asia-Pacific countries have with FTTP, they face many of the same issues surrounding FTTP that have been prevalent in the West," says Felton.

The business model, for example, is no less an issue than in other markets. "Finding a sustainable business model" is as important for private players in the Asia-Pacific markets as you can guess it is for service providers elsewhere. High bandwidth provided at low cost might be great for consumers, but is challenging for providers.

Government subsidies and support in some markets is part of the answer for some providers, though.

Service innovation also is an issue. FTTH provides "more" bandwidth. But does it stimulate new applications and businesses that did not exist before? The answer, so far, seems to be "no." That is not to say broadband is unimportant as an enabler of economic activity.

But it is fair to say even after a decade of having FTTH, there is little to point to except online gaming, in terms of new and widely-used applications. "Even in Japan and South Korea, there aren’t that many disruptive or innovative services available to end-users, with the exception of online gaming," Felton says.

"While there’s been a vibrant development of Internet activities, especially in South Korea, this hasn’t necessarily resulted in the kinds of services that are generally expected, such as health care or connected communities," says Felton.

Sustainability, especially in a market context, remains an issue as well. While things have been slowly improving for early deployers, especially NTT, which announced at the conference that its average revenue per user  for FTTP services has increased from 4,800 yen to 5,590 yen between 2006 and 2009, the revenue from fiber-grade services that actually benefits the telco remains limited.

Regulators, on the other hand, must continually monitor the degree of competition in the access market as well, and Felton notes that NTT has 75 percent market share in the fiber access market, but only 30 percent or so in the digital subscriber line market.

Asia-Pacific is still by far the most advanced region of the world when it comes to fiber to the premises deployment and adoption. Asian FTTP adoption is estimated at 40 million subscribers, compared with just eight million in North America and 3.5 million in Europe.

The Korea Communications Commission and KT have ambitions to upgrade to a national target of 1 Gbps connectivity. That's an important national goal, but such government-lead policies arguably are not replicable in other markets that must rely on normal supply and demand constraints.

In some "state-lead" markets, the advantage for incumbent operators is an easier business case. In Malaysia, the government has decided to co-finance a fifth of the cost of an urban deployment of FTTP. As you would expect, Telecom Malaysia customers are able to buy service that is quite attractive compared to what one would find in a market where such subsidies are not available, says Felton.

In Australia and New Zealand, deployment models involve heavy government intervention, both in funding and investment structure establishment.

The biggest anticipated growth of this second wave is China. The Chinese government itself is not directly involved in the FTTP push, but all of the competing Chinese telcos are state owned, which imposes different constraints on their investment decisions compared to private players.

The somewhat discouraging news is that, after 10 years, FTTH has not produced unambiguously new and lucrative applications. That doesn't mean such applications will not develop, but simply that a private market cost-benefit analysis might suggest it still isn't so smart to charge ahead with a robust FTTH program at all costs.

Verizon Slows FiOS Build: Implications for National Broadband Plan?

Many things have changed since Verizon Communications first began its FiOS construction program in 2004, and in the years leading up to that decision, when hot debates were held about the wisdom of fiber-to-neighborhood versus fiber-to-home networks.

Mobile broadband, especially the faster 3G and new 4G networks, now will begin to offer a serious alternative for a signficant number of end users.  Consumer resistance to paying higher prices for higher-speed fixed broadband (50 Mbps and above) has not lessened.

Cable companies have solidified their position as specialists in the consumer services segment, with the exception of wireless. Given cable's position in consumer video and voice, financial returns from fiber-to-home deployments, in the mass market, are getting harder to justify, not easier.

In many ways, leading U.S. telcos have found that their strengths in wireless and enterprise services are matched by relative cable strength in the mass market video and voice product segments.

Also, opportunity costs arguably have risen over the last 10 years, opportunity cost representing the potential gains a company might have made if capital had been deployed elsewhere,, such as wireless or software, instead of high-capacity fiber access.

In the background are concerns about the long-term relative value of multi-channel entertainment and voice revenues as well, which dampen financial returns from those two core services.

Take all of that into account and the apparent lessening desire on Verizon's part to continue investing in fiber to the home is logical, perhaps even prudent.

Given capital scarcity, burgeoning wireless and mobile broadband opportunities, as well as the slower growth for legacy services such as entertainment video, fixed access and voice, it would be hard to argue with an argument that effort is better placed squarely in the wireless arena, rather than fixed line services.

For that reason, it is not a complete surprise that Verizon seems to be slowing its FiOS program, which had been nearing the end of the major construction phase, in any case. The company says it no longer will seek to build FiOS in communities where it has not already gotten video franchises issued.

That means Verizon apparently will not undertake FiOS builds in Baltimore and downtown Boston, for example, a scenario many of us would not have predicted.

Verizon is still negotiating for franchises in some smaller communities, mainly in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, but it is not working on securing franchises for any major urban areas.

Verizon never committed to bringing FiOS to its entire local-phone service area, originally planning to make service available to about 18 milliion households by the end of 2010, a goal it will reach. Since the program began, however, Verizon also has been selling assets in less-populated areas in the Midwest and West Coast.

The recruitment of new FiOS TV subscribers slowed last year. In the fourth quarter, it added 153,000 subscribers, little more than half of the number it added in the same period the year before.

At the end of last year, Verizon had 2.86 million FiOS TV subscribers and 3.43 million FiOS Internet subscribers (most households take both).

Investors never have liked the FiOS program, which will wind up costing an estimated $23 billion. FiOS likely has been a key reason Verizon has been able to compete with cable companies.

Verizon is the only major U.S. phone company to draw fiber all the way to homes and the only one to offer broadband speeds approaching those available in Japan and South Korea. But the financial returns have not been so overwhelming that the decision to expand the program is completely clear.

Verizon's experience might be an implicit warning to policymakers that although the goal of 100 Mbps service, provided to 100 million U.S. homes, by 2020 is a fine stretch goal, but might face trouble if it means consumers have to pay significantly more for such service. Consumers might prefer 20 Mbps to 30 Mbps for $50 to $60 a month, rather than 50 Mbps for $100 a month, and certainly more than 100 Mbps for $150 to $200 a month.

related article

Metered Internet Access Plans Coming?

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says in a CNBC interview that the question of how consumers pay for their broadband is "an evolving thing." Britt still does not believe the existing flat rate for unlimited usage pricing plans are going to exist universally, indefinitely.

Verizon EVP Dick Lynch also has noted that Verizon would have to consider some form of tiered or metered bandwidth in the future.

One might argue that such plans will be available, with a premium price. But many, if not most other plans likely will move to some pricing format more nearly resembling the way people now buy buckets of wireless minutes or text messages. Consumers nearly universally dislike true metered usage plans, but have shown a level of comfort with "buckets." That suggests buckets will be the path forward for broadband services that must take some account of drastic bandwidth consumption patterns imposed by video content.

Some idea of the need for such plans, sure to be initially unpopular with some consumers, is the cost of continually providing more bandwidth, with modest increases in new revenue. At least some independent service providers have argued for years that fiber-to-home investments cannot be justified in tradtional "five year return on capital" criteria.

In that view, operators need to invest in FTTH "to keep their businesses," essentially. Yankee Group analyst Vince Vittore says that sort of refrain was current at the most recent Fiber to the Home conference.

Cable competition is a primary motivator in that regard. But experience so far continues to show that the financial return from an FTTH network is not assured nor easy. Nobody expects a return on invested capital in five years, as once was possible for many types of network investments.

Nor does anybody seem to believe it is possible to earn a return on FTTH networks based principally on incremental revenue from optical access, or even from providing video entertainment services. One need look no further than that to discern the industry emphasis on new applications, services and revenue.

Usage that is more closely tied to actual usage will happen. That doesn't mean it will be as strictly metered as electricity or water. But think about wireless buckets of use and one can conceive of metered service plans that consumers do not find inherently objectionable.

FiOS Does Not Sell Itself

Even FiOS Doesn't Sell Itself

Verizon's third quarter FiOS revenues totaled more than $1.4 billion, up 56 percent year over year. And FiOS average revenue per user also hit more than $137 per month.

Verizon also added about 18 percent more FiOS TV and Internet customers than in the same quarter last year, including 191,000 FiOS TV and 198,000 FiOS Internet customers, increasing Verizon's penetration to 25 percent for TV and 29 percent for Internet.

Still, net adds were less than the record adds of the last two quarters, Verizon says. Gross sales were lower primarily due to a change in promotional activity, the company says.

"As it turns out, we had a couple of promotions that worked, didn't work as well," says Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon CEO. "What happened is we had a couple of better quarters and we toyed with how we could sustain that and found that it was difficult in light of maintaining a fiscal discipline against it."

In other words, Verizon probably did not spend as much as it could have on marketing FiOS services, and the results probably slowed because of that conservatism.

The point, perhaps, is that as powerful a marketing platform as FiOS represents, the value proposition appears to remain less obvious to consumers than we inside the business sometimes think.

Verizon remains committed to adding about one million new FiOS customers every year, on a base of homes passed that stands at about 45 percent of all Verizon residential passings, with video available to about 34 percent of total households passed.

That illustrates part of the problem. Whatever Verizon does, it potentially can sell video services to about a third of all residences, though it can sell FiOS broadband to about 45 percent of homes. It always is tough to market services when a third of homes can buy them, not all.

And as service providers have learned in the past, easing up on promotions, or banking on the wrong promotions, can have significant effect on results. Not even fiber-to-the-home service, in and of itself, seems to "sell itself" to most customers, as powerful as those sorts of connections always have seemed to people in the business.

at&t U-Verse: 30 Million Homes Passed by 2010

at&t says it expects its U-Verse fiber-to-customer-driven video service to be available in 30 million homes by the end of 2010, compared to 5.5 million as of its last quarter. The company has said it hopes to pass 17 million homes by the end of 2008.

For users not interested in at&t's IPTV offering, the extension of the fiber-to-customer network means higher broadband access speeds will be available as well. For many of us, if not for at&t, that is the more important part of the story.

FiOS Goes 20 Mbps Symmetrical

Some residents of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey now are able to buy Verizon's new symmetrical 20 Mbps FiOS service. The 20/20 service costs $64.99 per month and includes Verizon's Internet Security Suite and 1 GByte of online backup (up to 50GB can be purchased.

A small business version is certain to be offered. Can you guess what this will do to T1 demand and pricing where the offer is available?

Carrier Fiber Plans Accelerating?

Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, hasn't come to terms with BT about ways to speed up fiber to customer investments in the U.K. market. Up to this point BT has objected to earlier proposals that would have applied relatively robust wholesale requirements to new optical access plant. Perhaps there is new hope for some compromise that reassures investors, speeds up fiber deployment and yet offers some hope of a return.

Around the world, fiber to customer deployments seem poised to accelerate, but both competitive providers such as Illiad in France and Verizon in the United States have been punished by the financial community for daring to proceed with such deployments, which are costly, no doubt. U.S. cable companies have the same problem. Every time there is a hint that capital spending plans might intensify, equity values get hit. Comcast appears to be under that cloud as well at the moment.

Irrespective of the competitive elements of such decisions--obviously the providers making the investments want to keep the rewards, if they can be had--these networks can only be built by private capital. And private capital keeps making clear concern about the payback, whether those investments are made by cable companies, incumbent telcos or competitive providers.

At this point it is a simple fact that the investment framework has to reassure the capital markets. Yes, competition is desirable. But that has to be balanced against capital markets that actually loathe competition. Let's hope Ofcom and BT can thread this needle.

Verizon FiOS Getting Ready to Blow Down Doors

Readers of ComputerWorld might not be "typical" U.S. consumers. Neither might members of the ChangeWave Alliance, as both will skew much more heavily into the technological savvy end of the customer spectrum. But there's growing evidence that at least for these lead elements of the technology-buying and influencing market, Verizon's FiOS is poised to take significant share.

Not that "satisfaction" is any guarantee of loyalty, but FiOS customers seem significantly happier than Comcast cable modem customers, for example. And on the "I'm going to switch" front, limited FiOS availability, like limited iPhone stock, has depressed sales. That will change, if ChangeWave member sentiments are any indication.

In fact, of users who say they are going to change video providers, the percentage of users who say they intend to switch to FiOS or another fiber-to-customer service is 300 percent higher than the percentage of users that say they will switch to cable for TV service.

So Verizon and at&t simply have to get their networks in front of more customers.

Corning FTTH Advance

Corning is introducing a new line of extremely bendable optical fiber cable based on its nanoStructures technology platform. The change in physical media might not seem so significant, as the new design allows cabled fiber to be bent around very tight corners with virtually no signal loss. So think about the way signals now are zipped around offices and homes. Coaxial cable (augmented by category 5 wiring for some fiber to customer installs) for homes and category 5 for offices. Up to this point, one reason for those choices is that optical media wouldn't bend enough to be useful as a drop media.

That doesn't alleviate the need for optical-to-electrical conversion, but could allow the conversion right at the end user device instead of some other demarcation point. In most cases it still will make sense to convert optical to electrical at a side of home network interface, for cost reasons alone. But designers will have lots more latitude in high-rise living units, where O/E conversion can be done at some point much closer to a cluster of users.

The advantage there is the network operator's ability to retain the benefits of optical bandwidth far deeper into the customer network, as all copper media carry less bandwidth than optical media does. So driving fiber deeper into a building has the same salutory effect as driving fiber deeper into a neighborhood: there is less bandwidth sharing, and therefore more effective bandwidth available to users.

The net effect is the ability to drive more fiber into customer networks at less cost than before, and to terminate optical networks closer to end users than ever before, at least in high-density settings. That, in turn, provides a boost for fiber to customer deployments in markets with high density housing. Verizon should like that.

Video Behavior Changes After FTTH

This will not come as any great surprise, but the three top applications customers use when they get fiber to the home service are watching full-length video, online gaming and video on demand. If one looks at the top four activities, video represents three of four applications. Of the top seven apps, five are video apps. So suggests a survey conducted by the Fiber to the Home Council.