Comments on: Frontier’s Low-Fiber Diet: ‘Most Users Don’t Need Ultra-Fast Internet Access,’ Says Company Official

By: Brian A Foley

Brian A Foley — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:24:42 +0000

Phillip – Would like to get some information from you. Also, do you know if Rochester or Syracuse responded to the Google RFI?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:33:03 +0000

Here’s a plan: If Frontier doesn’t think internet customers want fiber to the home, how about they simply lease the territorial rights to Monroe County for FTTH to Verizon, for a reasonable sum of, say, $10,000 per year?

I mean, if customers truly don’t want FTTH, $10,000 per year would be free money for Frontier, right? If customers don’t want it, what does Frontier have to lose by doing this?

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:19:51 +0000

I totally agree John. If they want to remain relevant in the future, they are going to have to do something or eventually go out of business. Information technology is one of the few areas that grows tremendously fast. If you don’t keep up, you get left in the dust. The best thing Frontier can do, is get rid of this lady and get someone that understands the game and can think outside-the-box.

@Ian

I agree with you there that rural areas probably could cost $5000/household but to state that all cost that much, nah. She is definitely smoking something. It must be some good stuff though…

By: bob manzy

bob manzy — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:27 +0000

I’m Sorry, there are more deserving than Ontario county, not to mention there not going to go to some place with infrastructure already in place.

Reason:

Google plans to offer 1 Gigabit of speed, there are few FTTH infrastructures that can support that, it requires new equipment at the head end, replacement of home wiring to gigabit routers, and is going to require a slew of software upgrades.

Sorry Ontario County, its not going to happen for you.

By: Rudy Richter

Rudy Richter — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:03:15 +0000

I’d pay the one time cost of $1500-$5000 to get FTTH.

The sad bit of it all is that Frontier does have fiber in Rochester, they call it Metro-E. They’re just being skittish about actually rolling out service.

By: John

John — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:48:16 +0000

$5000 is insane. It might cost $5000 to wire up the first home in a community, but the costs have to be less as additional homes in that community are wired. But even Ann is right and it’s $5000 per subscriber, what is the cost of maintaining an aging copper infrastructure? And what is the opportunity-cost in continuing to lose customers to cable?

But let’s go with $5000. I don’t know what Frontier might charge for FTTH service, but I’ll toss out a number– $100/month for broadband and phone service. So in 50 months (4.2 years), the subscriber would pay for the installation costs, after which the normal maintenance costs kick in, and the rest is profit.

Yes, it’s a simplistic analysis, but you’re telling me that Frontier couldn’t make a solid business argument to their investors that in 4.2 years, not only would the roll-out of FTTH pay for itself, but Frontier could have maintained or even expanded their customer base, opened the door to revenue from other services (like video), and helped reduce the costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure?

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:43:51 +0000

Urban/suburban is typical for FiOS. Companies set a minimum number of houses passed per mile/neighborhood before they say yes or no to fiber. In suburban franchise areas, the local governments typically try to force companies to spend the extra money to also wire the outliers. Statewide franchising makes it a lot easier to leave more people behind.

Verizon enjoys some economy-of-scale and they’ve become more efficient about how to deal with upgrading their network, so I’m certain their costs are much lower than what you quote. I could see smaller installs costing more for obvious reasons, but not the ridiculous $5,000 per home passed unless we were talking about wiring the Kansas countryside with a home every few miles.

The payoff from making the fiber investment, of course, comes in the ability to leverage the enormous bandwidth capability to sell new services to subscribers, and have a much easier upgrade path in the future, as laser technology continues to evolve.

For the telephone companies, it may eventually become a life or death issue, as copper wire network limitations continue to increase the gap between traditional telcos and fiber and wireless competitors, where available.

By: Ian L

Ian L — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:48:29 +0000

FYI, the $5000 figure could be correct in some rural areas. Verizon’s figure is in urban-ish areas where the fiber laid per subscriber is lower. That said, from what I hear the average installation cost for FTTH per customer is $1500-$2000 these days. Maybe a little less.

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:50:05 +0000

She just doesn’t get it. But then again, Rochester is an anomaly for Frontier — its largest service area by far and itself not part of Frontier’s ongoing business plan to become America’s rural telephone company. We want NYC speeds, but get Green Acres instead.

Burr, by the way, was the former general manager at Time Warner Cable in Rochester. Her comments reflect the usual pooh-poohing providers reflexively serve up whenever there is the threat of fiber coming to town.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:36 +0000

Copper is dying. Fiber IS the future of communications!! They know copper is dying and still want to hang on to an antiquated system. $5000/home Bull freaking crap!! Look lady, this is 2010 not 1956! Get with the freaking times! Jesus, these idiots are so short sighted it just boggles the imagination how much they are.

@jr

That statement might be more true than you think.