chromebuster: You make some compelling arguments. However, there are some flaws in your logic. Of existing technologies, FTTH may be the best "last mile" solution fo some applications. The other choices are cable, DSL, ans satellite.
Cable is somewhat less expensive than FTTH if a headend already exists in the area, but does not have the speed headroom. Additionally, cable subjects the user to loss of bandwidth due to sharing.
For those customers within 5000 feet of a CO, DSL is the slam dunk choice. However, to make DSL available to more distant customers means that more COs must be built - very expensive and impractical.
Satellite is still in its infancy, but it may well emerge as a viable alternative. It has gotten poor reviews so far.
So, you can see that of the available technologies, FTTH may be the best is some situations. However, simply being the best does not make it a viable technology. It is still *very* expensive. It works well in select applications that are often showcased like the ones you have cited.
Additionally, if you go back and read the article you cited regarding FTTH in rural applications, the cost effectiveness of the application depends on a goverment subsidy.
I am not trying to argue that FTTH cannot be cost-effective in some applications. It certainly can. However, if FTTH were the best and last ile solution, and it were cost effective, we would already be seeing it everywhere. Obviously, we are not.
I think that there wil come a time when fiber is a ubiquitous transmission medium. Of course, some would say the same about satellite, or wireless. Who knows what the future holds. I know that neither you nor I do. However, at present, the "last mile" problem does exist, and FTTH is not a cost-effective solution in general. The NVEI technology, if delivered as promised, would be.
