While British Telecom and Virgin rely on partial fiber networks to deliver faster broadband, they can’t touch the speeds on offer from Hyperoptic, a new start-up fiber t0 the home provider competing for broadband customers in London.  For just under $80 a month, customers can purchase the UK’s first 1Gbps broadband offering, which lets you download an HD movie in about 40 seconds.

Hyperoptic’s fast speeds come from the fact it is a true fiber-to-the-home provider.  As a startup, the company is being very selective about where it is deploying service, starting with housing estates and multi-dwelling units where a significant number of customers can be reached within a single building or complex.  The first completed fiber build serves 133 apartments in a building in Battersea.  The company plans to extend the service to the rest of the complex in the coming months, and their effort has been aided by the fact the building is already “fiber-ready,” with pre-existing fiber faceplates ready for hookup.  Hyperoptic is expected to first focus on more modern housing estates that have already made accommodations for modern telecommunications, be it coaxial cable, Ethernet, or fiber.

The company is competing with providers who already claim to deliver a fiber experience, but the company founder says those claims are based on half-truths.

“We are basing our platform on bringing fiber direct to the customer,” Hyperoptic founder and chairman Boris Ivanovic told PC Pro. “There’s been a lot of different marketing speak going on in the UK talking about what real fiber is and everyone is taking credit for doing fiber. But BT Infinity and Virgin – what they are doing is only partial fiber, and what we are doing here is bringing fiber into the buildings and directly to customers and that allows us to deliver 1Gbps.”

Hyperoptic’s services are priced to aggressively compete with other providers:

• 20/20Mbps:  $20/mo
• 100/100Mbps:  $40/mo
• 1000/1000Mbps: $80/mo

A $19.95 phone line rental charge and $64 installation fee applies.

Phillip "Wants a High Fiber Diet" Dampier

Believe it or not, there are still some people out there who believe wireless broadband, as it exists today, is the future of high bandwidth communications in North America.  Forget DSL, forget cable, forget fiber optics, they say.  Technology like 4G and WiMax are “far superior” and cheaper.

To be fair, most of the people advocating the technology Sprint is in the process of abandoning have a vested interest in stopping fiber broadband projects.  That is because while Verizon continues to sit on its hands expanding its excellent FiOS fiber-to-the-home service, some of the most aggressive fiber projects in the country are being built by your local town, city, or village government.  It’s community-owned broadband, by and for the people in your own area.  Large telecom interests that have always refused to deliver fiber service (or pretend to by using the word ‘fiber’ while not bringing a single strand to your home) have it in for potential competitors that are willing to provide the advanced fiber technology they won’t.

So why aren’t big phone and cable companies providing this level of service?  In a word, money.  Their shareholders don’t like the initial cost of deploying fiber to the home service, even though the technology is superior to what reaches your home today, is infinitely expandable without stringing new cables across town, and can support money-making applications developers and providers have not even dreamed of yet.  With a pervasive lack of competition, there is nothing to overcome Wall Street’s conclusion that fiber doesn’t deliver fast enough profits to justify the initial expense.

When you take Wall Street out of the equation, especially in the telecom sector, the math works very differently.  While the phone and cable company is probably telling you “no,” companies like Google are saying yes in Kansas City.  So are municipally-owned rural co-operative phone and cable companies.  Communities deciding broadband is too important to leave to the phone companies that deliver half their residents 1-3Mbps DSL and call it a day are saying yes to fiber optics as well.

Overseas, fiber networks are being built in countries in Eastern Europe where the economics would never make sense by Wall Street standards, yet residents (and perhaps more importantly new digital economy businesses) are now getting Internet speeds of 100Mbps or better.  The next countries that could import good-paying American jobs might be Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

So what does it take to adapt to this reality in North America?  Providers that are willing to make a long term investment in fiber broadband — one that may take a few extra years to pay back, but will generate dividends like increased employment, capacity to provide better, faster service, more reliable networks, and earning a piece of the action powering North America’s new digital economy.  If they won’t listen, tell your elected officials to support policies that promote additional competition and back community broadband expansion that can make all the difference between 3Mbps DSL and 100Mbps fiber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber is Better.flv[/flv]

Watch and share this video with friends and family to educate them about the infinite possibilities of fiber optic broadband and learn why it is superior to usage-capped wireless, slow speed DSL, satellite fraudband, or lopsided cable “High Speed Internet” broadband that delivers high speed in only one direction. (3 minutes)

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

Frontier Communications has announced the availability of Metro Ethernet service to a total of 55 cities in 11 states, with one Frontier representative describing it as perfect for individuals “who are serious gamers, people who download videos and those who watch TV and movies on their computers.”  Apparently Diana Anderson, technical supervisor for Frontier in Kennewick, Wash., has not read Frontier’s Washington State service tariff (5.7.7b) to understand the cost implications of signing up for the service.

Metro Ethernet falls between DSL and fiber optic connectivity, and delivers service at speeds that can approach 100Mbps or more, depending on telephone company facilities and the distance of copper between your home or business and the central switching office.  There are Metro Ethernet services that work over fiber networks, fiber-copper hybrid networks, and even traditional copper landlines — the ones Frontier uses to deliver its MetroE service.

Frontier is pitching Metro Ethernet primarily to medium and large-sized businesses who need more speed than the phone company can offer over its traditional DSL products.  The reason it’s not marketed to consumers is the cost.  Frontier’s Metro Ethernet service is included in Frontier’s tariff for Washington with an installation fee of $320 and a Metro Ethernet-Special Transport fee of $75 a month per DS1 (1.544Mbps).  Customers can get additional speed above 1.544Mbps by paying for additional DS1’s.

We called Frontier’s customer service and asked about service pricing in the Rochester area.  A residential customer service representative had to transfer us to the business products office — they do not sell “residential” Metro Ethernet.  A representative there said the service was available in several parts of Rochester, but was “completely unfeasible” for residential customers because of its cost.  Frontier DSL is the recommended solution for all residential customers in western New York, despite the fact the service does not exceed 3Mbps in our neighborhood (although it is marketed at speeds up to 10Mbps locally).

The following communities now have access to Frontier MetroE service:

• Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
• Bloomington, Carbondale, DeKalb, Freeport, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Marion and Olney, Illinois
• Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Richmond, Terra Haute and Valparaiso, Indiana
• Adrian, Coldwater, Mount Pleasant, Muskegon and Sturgis, Michigan
• Bryson City, Burnsville, Cherokee, Creedmoor, Durham , Hayesville, Marion and Murphy, North Carolina
• Gardnerville, Nevada
• Athens, Bowling Green, Delaware, Jackson, Marion, Medina, Troy and Wilmington, Ohio
• Beaverton, Coos Bay, Gresham and Hillsboro, Oregon
• Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
• Everett and Kennewick, Washington
• Merrill, Sun Prairie and Wausau, Wisconsin

Let us know what kind of pricing and promotions you can get from Frontier for Metro Ethernet in your area in our comments section.

Burlington Telecom offices in Burlington, Vt.

Citibank has sued the city of Burlington, Vt., and the city’s legal firm demanding municipal-provider Burlington Telecom hand back their fiber-to-the-home network and pay damages in excess of $33.5 million dollars.

Citicapital, which owns the equipment that operates Burlington’s community network, says Burlington Telecom has defaulted on their lease payments, and has demanded the city “de-install and return” the fiber network — everything from set-top boxes and in-home wiring to ripping fiber cables directly out of underground vaults and off telephone poles.  Citi also wants BT’s vehicle fleet turned over to them.

Burlington Telecom has been a poster child of poorly-planned and implemented city-owned broadband, and a series of financial and operational scandals led state investigators to consider criminal charges for misappropriating taxpayer funds to sustain the network.  While prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges, the resulting scandal in the mayor’s office has left the city with a network it stopped paying for, and the potential much of it could be auctioned off to the highest bidder, which could turn out to be Comcast or FairPoint Communications.

Citicapital claims the city has not made a direct lease payment since November, 2009.  The bank had been drawing down funds deposited in a special escrow account the city was required to open as part of the lease-to-purchase transaction.  That account has also run dry, and the bank claims it has received no payments since May of 2010.

Citibank’s attorneys filed suit:

“BT continues to use Citibank’s equipment and vehicles unlawfully and without its permission and continues to depreciate the value of Citibank’s assets in order to generate revenue for itself,” the bank’s attorneys charged.

Citibank wants a judge to award punitive damages in excess of its remaining loan balance “because Burlington’s intentional breach of the agreement amounts to a reckless or wanton disregard of Citibank’s clear contractual rights.”

“It’s ironic that a bank that received a taxpayer-financed multi-hundred-billion-dollar bailout now wants taxpayers in Burlington to pay them excessive damages,” shares Stop the Cap! reader and Burlington resident Joe, who shared the story with us.  “I think we should be calling it even after three years of big bank bailouts.”

The lawsuit has city residents worried because attorney fees, and any resulting damages or settlement agreement with the bank, will likely run well into the millions of dollars.  Every month the city remains in arrears, Citibank’s agreement calls for at least $235,000 in missed payment fees and interest.  Taxpayers will likely cover most, if not all of that amount.

“I don’t think anybody should be surprised,” City Councilor Paul Decelles, R-Ward 7 told the Burlington Free-Press. “I always believed this day was going to come. Now we have enormous mess on our hands.”

Citibank wants their fiber back.

Christopher Mitchell from Community Broadband Networks notes Burlington Telecom was an aberration in a country with many successful community-owned broadband networks.

“We have watched in dismay as Burlington Telecom transitioned over the past four years from a model community network to the worst case scenario,” Mitchell wrote on the group’s blog. “This situation proves only that community networks can suffer from bad management in some of the many ways private telecom companies can suffer from bad management (resulting in anything from bankruptcy to prison).”

“Communities can learn lessons from Burlington’s situation — chief among them that transparency is important,” Mitchell observed. “As with other public enterprise funds, the operation should be regularly audited and oversight must be in place to catch errors early, when corrections are easier and less costly.”

Among Burlington Telecom’s problems included overpriced, uncompetitive broadband service that never took full advantage of fiber’s speed and versatility.  Earlier news accounts included speculation BT had trouble securing sufficient connectivity with a backbone provider to sustain faster speeds, but it left the company at a competitive disadvantage against incumbent cable operator Comcast.  Burlington Telecom also failed repeatedly to build community support to establish a firewall against frequent political shots fired at the network as it became a partisan hot potato.

The city promises a “vigorous defense” against the lawsuit, and observers suspect a judge will not order the city to shut the network down, because it would cease the only revenue stream the company generates that could be used to pay a negotiated settlement with the bank.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Citibank Sues BT 9-20-11.mp4[/flv]

WCAX in Burlington explores how much of a case Citibank has in its lawsuit against the city and its attorneys over Burlington Telecom.  (4 minutes)