I'm with others who want a AT&T U-Verse service to be able nationally or regionally.

It is FIOS (fibre to the premesis, cable to the set) people want. Comparatively, Uverse sucks (fibre to the neighbourhood, IPTV tot he home/set, currently only one HD channel/up to 4 SD channels at a time to the home).

Right. An example of FiOS is the Verizon service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS) in the US.

FiOS IS the Verizon service in the US. Other fibre to the home (FTTH) services are not FiOS. FiOS is Verizon's brand for their service.

Thanks for the clarification travisc, I wasn't aware FiOS is a brand.

I'm not sure what it would take to make it viable, but I'd pay a $500-$1000 install charge to get fiber to my house if the monthly service charges were similar to the competition.

But you'd be one of very few people. I was talking to a Bell installer about IPTV and we were discussing the costs of fibre to the home but the costs, even if you did a whole neighbourhood, would likely be that price. The truth is that only a very small number of people would pay that kind of dough let alone a whole neigbourhood.

I can only see FTTH being reasonable in new residential developments or new MDU's. (multiple dwelling units)

How close to the home have they got with fiber? Is it only used in main trunks? Or what?

I ask because according to some recent studies, fibre-to-the-home networks now pass almost 12 million North American homes.

As a consequence of the high-tech boom-bust, there is also, I believe, a lot of dark fiber out there both in Canada and the U.S. There have even been stories about Google wanting to buy it.

I wonder if it isn't time for governments to get involved in this by putting up money to leverage private investment.

there is also, I believe, a lot of dark fiber out there both in Canada and the U.S.

But its not going to homes. The problem any exec will tell is the "last mile" getting the fibre from a node, which may serve a few hundred to few thousand homes, to the home itself.

I find it interesting how government is like an on/off switch for people... People decry their presence in telecom via the CRTC, but then turn around and demand that they start doing something so we can all get 100 Mbps to our houses for 50 cents a month. Unfortunately government usually does the opposite of what we want.

Just saying, an install fee of $500-$1000 is what it would be worth to me (in the same range as the price of another Shaw PVR box). I know I don't speak for the majority, but if our providers keep downgrading their services instead of upgrading them I may have a lot more company soon.

In any case, actual install charges don't seem to be anywhere near that high.

For example, Verizon FiOS TV install looks to be free, and FiOS Internet is free with a 1 year contract or $80 install for month-to-month service. Of course, you have to be in their service area.

When do you suppose they'll add Canada to their service area? :rolleyes:

But its not going to homes. The problem any exec will tell is the "last mile" getting the fibre from a node, which may serve a few hundred to few thousand homes, to the home itself.

I've been hearing this for 15 years. The question is whether we can trust the exec when he makes this kind of statement. Or whether the exec even knows.

I find it interesting how government is like an on/off switch for people... People decry their presence in telecom via the CRTC, but then turn around and demand that they start doing something so we can all get 100 Mbps to our houses for 50 cents a month. Unfortunately government usually does the opposite of what we want.

It's not an on/off switch for me. I like the CBC. I don't believe the CRTC should disappear. I just feel it should do a better job -- especially on issues such as Canadian content requirements. And in a democratic state, I'll choose government over most corporations any day of the week. At least, we get to vote for our elected officials.

Fiber is probally not to far away. But it won't be offered by Verizon, and AT&T U-Verse I don't think wil come here either. I think we might see a new service come out all together if the cable co's don't move on it soon.

There is more driving the further extension of fiber than HDTV. There have been several articles recently about how the Internet may reach the breaking point because of growing access and larger downloads -- especially of video (and no doubt increasingly in HD format). The Internet has also established itself as important to electronic commerce and increasingly as an alternate mean of delivering TV.

In these circumstances, it becomes more likely that all the industry players and government will become involved in increasing the capacity of backbones and trunks, as well as expanding the network so that it passes many more residences.

Source Cable has built one of their new neighborhoods with fibre to the home... I don't think it's comparable to FiOS because they're just replacing the traditional distribution system with fibre. Essentially you get the same services at the endpoints, but you're certainly more future-proofed.