I was talking to a friend in the UK and he told me that it is mandated by law that fiber will be available to each door by 2012.
I seem to recall that the US has a similar mandate, but I’ll be darned if I could find it via Google.
Did I dream this?
Fiber is an important nutrient (for regularity and general bowel health), but as far as I know there is no legislation to require direct delivery of this or any other nutritional substitute.
I have posted on the topic of the important of fiber here before, but I’ll avoid giving TMI unless there’s a request for it.
Um, I think we are talking about fiber optic for data transmission.
I do not believe any country can have fiber to the home to every home by that date.
Oh. That’s very different, then. Never mind.
[sub]Dietary fiber’s still important, though.[/sub]
Most countries are behind in their planned or hoped-for implementation of VDSL2 and it seems some will skip it alltogether and go to FTTH directly but I think nobody needs the bandwidth of fiber just for internet access. What people will buy is content and how it is delivered is secondary. FTTH is just a way of delivering TV or other content. While FTTH may be easily deployed in densely populated areas I just cannot see how it could possibly be deployed to every home in such short time. I think it will take much longer as copper is slowly replaced by fiber.
Speaking as a nurse, if you dont get enough fibre in your diet, then I may come in early morning and make a delivery to your ***back ***door.
Which you really don’t want. So grab a bran muffin and the whole orange…
But the question remains whether there is a mandate or not. The ability to fulfill the requirements is separate from whether the law was passed. I seem to recall it was (My purchase of Corning stock was based on thinking this) and yet I cannot find anything to back up my memory.
Did the US set a timeline for fiber to each door? (regardless of whether it can be done)
Qadgop thanks for the smile.
While optical fiber-to-the-home achieved some popularity here a few years ago, I’ve never heard of an effort to mandate it, particularly to existing structures.
I am aware that mandatory ftth is being considered in Australia, but only for greenfield sites (sites with no current infrastructure on them).
Mandatory ftth does not make sense in the US, esp w/ so much copper to the home. Wireless and telco-based copper strategies to increase bandwidth to houses (along with cable) make it unreasonable, in my opinion.
I too put a chunk of change on GLW (and AFCI, for that matter) and I admit my interest in the subject was as much stock-oriented as it was technical interest.
I don’t see how something like that can be mandated. It’s fabulously expensive to dig up downtown city streets to lay fiber. And there are a number of carriers - which one would be liable if fiber didn’t get laid in a certain neighborhood?
I believe DC still has a moratorium in place on digging up the streets to lay more fiber because everybody got so pissed off back in the 90’s when the ISP’s had every other street closed off while they ran conduit for new fiber, much of it still dark to this day.
I think your friend is being a bit optimistic. Brown & co are now putting up a broadband tax to fund further expansion. It’s fibre to each village. Guardian article here.
Actually it makes more economic sense to deploy FFTH in densely populated areas rather than in the country. FTTH is already available (and has been for some time now) in many parts of Madrid, certainly to the parts where most offices are located.
One issue with FFTH: The POTS is powered from the central office but fiber cannot carry power and it is required that the phone service work independently of outside power. One way to get around this problem is nodes with battery backup are set up in every block or every customer.
One plan was to set up nodes about every city block and then deliver VDSL2 from there. All this is on hold and I am not sure which way things will go but if things do not move soon it may be FFTH and skip VDSL2. A lot has to do with regulations and whenever you have the government involved you can be sure things move slowly.
I cannot imagine that any country can have FTTH deployed to every single residence in three years’ time and I cannot imagine there would be any law or regulation requiring it.
That’s not fiber, that’s DSL and not even the fastest DSL. That seems more doable.
There is no US mandate for this. There’s some work on bringing broadband to the sticks and defining a minimum speed, but no, no fiber laws.
It’s fibre to each village then DSL to each home. Mainly.
That’s not what the article says:
In any case, it makes little difference how the speed is achieved so I can’t see why they would impose one technology over another so long as the desired result is achieved.