Executive Summary

The U.S. telecommunications landscape is undergoing its most significant infrastructural transformation in a century. After more than a decade of deep-seated reluctance, incumbent carriers have executed a dramatic strategic pivot, moving from cautious, incremental upgrades of their legacy copper networks to aggressive, multi-billion-dollar capital expenditure programs aimed at the mass deployment of Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) infrastructure. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this fundamental shift, deconstructing the historical barriers that suppressed investment and the confluence of market catalysts that have now made fiber an economic and competitive necessity.

Historically, prior to 2015, the business case for FTTH was fundamentally broken for incumbent operators. Prohibitive deployment costs, ranging from $1,800 to over $2,500 per household passed, combined with modest consumer bandwidth demands, resulted in untenable payback period calculations that could stretch to 20 years. This financial reality was compounded by a Wall Street culture that prized capital discipline and shareholder returns over long-duration, speculative infrastructure projects, particularly in the wake of the early 2000s telecom crash. Furthermore, a complex and often counterproductive regulatory environment, defined by the unbundling mandates of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, created a powerful disincentive for incumbents to invest in new networks, only to be forced to lease them to competitors at regulated, cost-based rates. Faced with the daunting prospect of stranding their vast copper assets and the operational challenge of a full network transition, carriers opted for less capital-intensive, “good enough” solutions like Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN), effectively ceding the high-speed market to their cable competitors.

Beginning around 2015 and accelerating dramatically with the COVID-19 pandemic, this calculus was inverted by a powerful convergence of forces. Consumer bandwidth demand exploded, driven by 4K video streaming, the proliferation of connected devices, and the mass adoption of remote work and learning, which fundamentally altered traffic patterns and created a new premium on the symmetrical speeds that only fiber can efficiently deliver. Concurrently, the competitive landscape intensified; sustained market share losses to cable were compounded by the emergence of 5G Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) as a viable alternative and the disruptive market entry of Google Fiber, which reset consumer expectations.

This surge in demand and competition coincided with a newly favorable financial and policy environment. Technological advancements and deployment scale began to lower the per-household cost of FTTH, while a new class of infrastructure-focused investors, hungry for stable, long-term returns, poured capital into the sector. This enabled innovative new business models, such as joint ventures and open-access networks, that de-risk the investment for operators. Finally, unprecedented government subsidies, headlined by the $42.5 billion BEAD program, have made deployment in previously uneconomical rural and underserved areas financially viable.

Today, fiber is no longer a differentiator but the strategic foundation for future growth. It is the essential underpinning for 5G network densification, with converged FTTH/5G architectures promising massive cost efficiencies. It unlocks a host of adjacent, high-margin revenue streams, including enterprise services, wireless backhaul, and smart city applications. Financially, fiber customers deliver superior lifetime value through higher average revenue per user (ARPU), lower churn, and greater customer satisfaction. This report concludes that the U.S. telecom industry has moved irrevocably past the era of hesitation. The current “fiber land grab” is not a speculative bubble but a rational, necessary response to a permanent shift in technology, demand, and competition. The companies that execute their deployment and monetization strategies most effectively over the coming years will define the landscape of American connectivity for generations to come.

Part I: The Era of Hesitation – Unpacking Pre-2015 Investment Barriers

The current era of aggressive Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) deployment by U.S. telecommunications companies stands in stark contrast to a long preceding period characterized by deep-seated reluctance and strategic caution. To fully comprehend the magnitude of the recent transformation, it is essential to first deconstruct the formidable financial, regulatory, competitive, and operational barriers that made large-scale FTTH investment an unattractive, and often untenable, proposition for incumbent carriers prior to 2015. This historical context reveals a business environment where the risks of a full fiber overbuild far outweighed the perceived rewards, leading to a decade of incrementalism and strategic compromise.

1.1 The Unfavorable Economics of Early Fiber

The most significant impediment to early FTTH adoption was a daunting and unfavorable economic equation. The sheer cost of deployment, coupled with long and uncertain return horizons, created a financial model that was fundamentally misaligned with the priorities of publicly traded telecommunications companies.

Prohibitive Deployment Costs

In the 2000s and early 2010s, the capital expenditure (capex) required to deploy FTTH was exceptionally high. Early industry reports from the period of 2001-2006 indicated that the total installed cost for a system providing a full “triple-play” bundle of voice, video, and data could range from $1,800 to $2,100 per home passed.¹ These figures were influenced by the then-high costs of optical components, such as splitters and couplers, and the significant labor involved in installation.¹ More recent analysis, adjusting for inflation, suggests that the cost for buried fiber could be as high as $2,500 per household, plus an additional $5 per foot of trenching, making it a monumental capital undertaking.²

This represented a massive financial leap compared to the alternatives available to incumbent telcos. Upgrading their existing, fully depreciated copper networks to offer faster Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services, or even deploying a hybrid Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) architecture, involved a fraction of the upfront investment. For cable companies, their Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) networks already possessed a significant bandwidth advantage over copper and could be upgraded to higher speeds at a much lower incremental cost. The decision to pursue FTTH was therefore not an upgrade, but a full-scale, capital-intensive overbuild of an existing, functional network.

Challenging Payback Period Calculations

The combination of high upfront capex, uncertain customer adoption (take-up) rates, and modest incremental revenue potential led to daunting payback period calculations. The payback period, a critical metric for assessing investment risk, represents the time it takes for an investment’s cash flow to recoup the initial outlay.³ For FTTH projects in this era, the timelines were alarmingly long. Industry analyses suggested that payback periods could extend to as much as 15 to 20 years, a horizon that is difficult for any public company to justify to its shareholders.⁴

A case study from a South African operator, which mirrors the challenges faced by U.S. carriers at the time, provides a concrete example. With a deployment cost of $1,500 per connection, a take-up rate of only 15%, and an Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) of $80 per month, the calculated payback period exceeded eight years.⁵ For U.S. telcos facing intense quarterly earnings pressure from Wall Street, committing billions of dollars to projects with such long-term and uncertain returns was a non-starter.³

Marginal Revenue Uplift vs. Existing Assets

The final piece of the unfavorable economic puzzle was the comparison of potential FTTH revenue against the established, predictable cash flows from existing copper assets. While fiber offered technologically superior service, the incremental revenue it could generate from an average customer in the early 2000s did not appear to justify the massive investment. DSL services, delivered over the existing copper plant, were often deemed “good enough” to meet the prevailing consumer demand for basic web browsing and standard-definition video.⁷

This dynamic placed incumbent telcos squarely in the “innovator’s dilemma.” Their business models, financial structures, and operational workflows were all optimized to extract value from their vast, depreciated copper assets. FTTH was a disruptive technology—it was more expensive, its performance far exceeded the needs of the mass market at the time, and it threatened to cannibalize the profitable, albeit technologically inferior, DSL business.⁷ The rational, profit-maximizing decision within this framework was to focus on sustaining innovations that served the existing customer base, such as incremental DSL speed boosts or the more capital-efficient FTTN architecture. This approach, exemplified by AT&T’s U-verse platform, allowed telcos to improve service and compete more effectively with cable without committing to the balance-sheet-altering expense of a full fiber overbuild.⁹

1.2 Wall Street’s Capex Aversion

The internal financial calculus of telcos was heavily reinforced by external pressure from the investment community. In the pre-2015 era, Wall Street was deeply skeptical of large-scale, capital-intensive projects in the telecom sector, creating a powerful incentive for management to prioritize capital discipline and shareholder returns over transformative infrastructure investments.

Post-Dot-Com Bubble Skepticism

The telecommunications industry crash of the early 2000s, which was an order of magnitude larger than the more famous dot-com bubble, left a lasting scar on investors and analysts.¹¹ The collapse of giants like WorldCom and the evaporation of hundreds of billions of dollars in market value created a deep-seated aversion to speculative, high-capex ventures in the sector.¹² This led to a strong preference for what was termed “capital discipline,” where companies were rewarded for conserving cash and avoiding ambitious projects with uncertain returns.¹⁴ In this environment, proposing a nationwide fiber buildout was seen not as a visionary move, but as a reckless gamble reminiscent of the excesses that led to the crash.

Focus on Shareholder Returns

As a result of this risk aversion, Wall Street’s focus shifted squarely to predictable shareholder returns. Telecommunications stocks, particularly those of incumbent carriers like AT&T and Verizon, were valued as stable, dividend-paying utilities.¹⁵ AT&T, for instance, cultivated its reputation as a “dividend aristocrat” for its long history of consecutive dividend increases.¹⁶ The primary use of free cash flow was expected to be dividends and share buybacks, not massive network overbuilds.¹⁷

When Verizon launched its ambitious FiOS program, it was often met with significant investor concern. The multi-billion dollar capex program was a direct threat to the company’s free cash flow, a key metric watched by analysts, and raised questions about the sustainability of its dividend.¹⁸ This created a fundamental misalignment between the long-term nature of infrastructure investment and the short-term focus of the market. FTTH is a classic long-duration asset, with costs heavily front-loaded and revenues accruing over decades. Yet, telco management was being judged on a 90-day performance cycle. The path of least resistance was to appease the market by limiting capex and maximizing immediate returns to shareholders.

Analyst Commentary and Capex Scrutiny

This market sentiment was reflected in the commentary from financial analysts throughout the period. Reports consistently highlighted the risks associated with high capex intensity and often treated capital spending as a necessary evil for network maintenance rather than a driver of future growth.²⁰ Reports from the 2014-2015 timeframe show analysts praising carriers for throttling back capital spending after the completion of major 4G LTE wireless builds.²² Wireline investment, in particular, was often seen as a source of funds to be reallocated to the higher-growth wireless segment, rather than an area for new investment itself.²² The prevailing view among investors was that high capex was a drag on profitability and shareholder value, a perspective that heavily influenced the strategic decisions made in telecom boardrooms.¹

1.3 The Regulatory Quagmire: Unbundling and Investment Disincentives

Beyond the challenging economics, a complex and often counterproductive regulatory framework acted as a powerful brake on FTTH investment. Policies designed to foster competition inadvertently created a system that penalized incumbents for upgrading their networks, leading to a vicious cycle of underinvestment by all market participants.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Unbundling

The landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 had the primary goal of breaking up the monopolies held by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and introducing competition into the local telephone market.²⁵ A central mechanism for achieving this was the requirement for ILECs to provide their competitors, known as competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), with non-discriminatory access to their network elements on an “unbundled” basis.²⁷ This meant CLECs could lease individual components of the ILEC’s network—such as the local loop (the copper wire to the home)—at regulated rates, rather than having to build an entire competing network from scratch.²⁹

The “Impair” Standard and TELRIC Pricing

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was tasked with implementing these provisions. In its pivotal Triennial Review Order of 2003, the FCC established that an ILEC must unbundle a network element if a competitor would be “impaired” in its ability to provide service without it.³⁰ The price for these unbundled network elements (UNEs) was determined using a forward-looking cost methodology known as Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC).²⁵ In theory, this was meant to simulate the costs a competitor would face if it were to build the network itself, using modern, efficient technology. In practice, it often resulted in very low lease rates for CLECs.

The Investment Disincentive

This regulatory framework created a severe disincentive for ILECs to invest in new fiber infrastructure. Economic analysis consistently demonstrated that forcing a company to undertake a risky, expensive network buildout and then compelling it to lease that new network to its rivals at cost-based rates effectively destroys the business case for the investment.²⁸ The ILEC would bear 100% of the financial risk—if the fiber deployment failed to attract customers, the ILEC absorbed the entire loss. However, if the investment proved successful, the ILEC was required to share the upside with competitors who had taken no risk at all.³³ This dynamic led to a rational decision by ILECs to avoid or delay major network upgrades, as the potential rewards were artificially capped by regulation. As FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin presciently warned in his dissent to the

Triennial Review Order, the policy threatened to “wilt any lingering investment interest in the sector”.³⁰

This regulatory structure also distorted the incentives for CLECs. Faced with the choice between making a high-risk, capital-intensive investment in their own fiber network or simply leasing capacity from the ILEC at a low, regulated rate, the economically rational choice was overwhelmingly to lease.³³ This created a class of “paper competitors” who were entirely dependent on the incumbent’s infrastructure, rather than fostering the facilities-based competition the Act had originally envisioned. This, in turn, reinforced the ILEC’s reluctance to invest, creating a stalemate that suppressed fiber deployment for years.

While the FCC began to provide some relief in the mid-2000s by exempting newly deployed FTTH loops from these unbundling requirements, the broader regulatory environment remained uncertain.²⁹ The looming threat of net neutrality regulations being classified under Title II, which could have subjected broadband to more stringent common-carrier rules, created a persistent cloud of uncertainty that further chilled investment. Industry analysts at the time predicted that such a move would have a “profoundly negative impact on capital investment”.²⁴

Table 1: Key FCC Regulatory Milestones and Impact on ILEC Investment Incentives (Pre-2015)

Regulatory Action/Order	Key Provision(s)	Intended Goal	Actual Impact on ILEC FTTH Investment Incentive
Telecommunications Act of 1996 25	Unbundling Mandate (Section 251)	Promote local competition	Negative: Established the principle of forced network sharing, creating foundational risk for future infrastructure investment.
Triennial Review Order (2003) 30	“Necessary and Impair” Standard; Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) Pricing	Encourage facilities-based entry by CLECs	Negative: Forced ILECs to lease network elements at low, cost-based rates, destroying the risk-reward premium for investing in new fiber. Discouraged CLEC investment in favor of leasing.
FTTH/MDU Order (2004) 29	Unbundling Relief for FTTH	Spur deployment of fiber lines	Positive: Created a “safe harbor” for new FTTH deployments by exempting them from unbundling, providing a clear incentive for ILECs like Verizon to launch FiOS.
FTTC Order (2004) 29	Unbundling Relief for FTTC	Promote growth of fiber-based networks	Positive (Mixed): Extended unbundling relief to Fiber-to-the-Curb loops, but maintained access requirements for legacy copper, creating a complex hybrid regulatory environment.
Title II / Net Neutrality Proposals (2010-2015) 24	Proposed reclassification of broadband as a common carrier service	Ensure open internet	Negative: Created significant regulatory uncertainty, with analysts predicting a chilling effect on capital investment due to the prospect of rate regulation and other utility-style rules.

1.4 Competitive Stalemate and the “Good Enough” Network

The competitive dynamics of the pre-2015 broadband market further reinforced the telcos’ reluctance to invest in FTTH. Dominated by cable providers on the high end and facing limited consumer demand for gigabit speeds, telcos found a strategic middle ground in less ambitious, more cost-effective network upgrades.

Cable’s Dominance

Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, cable companies were the undisputed leaders in the U.S. broadband market. Their existing Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) infrastructure, originally built for television, had a natural and significant bandwidth advantage over the telcos’ twisted-pair copper lines. As consumer demand for speed increased, cable operators could incrementally upgrade their networks using new DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) standards, delivering faster speeds at a fraction of the cost of a full fiber overbuild.

This technological advantage translated directly into market share. By June 2017, cable modem service accounted for 62% of all fixed residential broadband connections in the U.S. In stark contrast, telco-style DSL had fallen to just 24% of the market.³⁶ At higher speed tiers, the disparity was even more pronounced: DSL accounted for only 13% of connections at 10 Mbps and a mere 4% at the then-FCC benchmark of 25 Mbps.³⁶ Telcos were steadily losing the broadband war.

The FTTN Compromise (AT&T U-verse)

Faced with this competitive pressure but unwilling to commit to the massive capex of FTTH, major telcos like AT&T pursued a compromise strategy: Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN). This architecture involved running fiber optic cables to a central cabinet or “node” serving a neighborhood, and then utilizing the existing copper lines for the final “last mile” connection to individual homes.⁹

The primary advantage of FTTN was cost. By leveraging the existing copper infrastructure, AT&T could avoid the most expensive and labor-intensive part of a fiber build—the connection to each individual premise. This allowed the company to launch its U-verse service, a triple-play bundle of TV, internet, and voice that was more competitive with cable offerings than legacy DSL, without the balance-sheet-breaking investment required for a full FTTH deployment like Verizon’s FiOS.³⁸ While FTTN’s performance was inherently limited by the length and quality of the final copper run, it was a pragmatic and capital-efficient response to the competitive environment of the time.⁹

Limited Consumer Demand for Gigabit Speeds

The telcos’ decision to opt for “good enough” solutions was also a reflection of consumer demand at the time. In the pre-2015 era, the applications that drive today’s demand for gigabit speeds were either nascent or non-existent. In 2009, an FCC analysis found that 80% of broadband users required no more than 4 Mbps of actual download speed to meet their needs, which primarily consisted of web browsing, email, and some standard-definition video streaming.⁷ Average monthly data consumption in 2010 was a mere 9 GB per household.²

From a business perspective, building a network capable of delivering 1,000 Mbps to serve a market that largely only needed 4 Mbps was a difficult proposition. The demand for true gigabit speeds was seen as a niche, limited to a small segment of power users, which made the business case for a universal FTTH rollout weak.¹⁰ The competitive landscape did not yet demand the ultimate performance of fiber, allowing telcos to persist with less capable but more economically rational alternatives.

1.5 The Weight of Legacy: Stranded Assets and Operational Inertia

Finally, the sheer weight of their own history created significant inertia for incumbent telcos. A century of investment in copper created a massive physical and operational infrastructure that could not be easily or cheaply abandoned.

Stranded Asset Risk

Incumbent telcos had billions of dollars of copper infrastructure on their balance sheets. A full-scale fiber deployment rendered this vast asset technologically obsolete, raising the specter of “stranded assets”—assets that must be prematurely retired or written down, resulting in a significant financial loss.⁴⁰ The accounting for such asset retirement obligations is complex and can have a material impact on a company’s financial statements, creating a powerful incentive to extend the life of the existing copper plant for as long as possible.⁴²

This concern was not merely an accounting exercise; it had real-world financial implications. The physical copper in the ground was also a target for theft, creating ongoing maintenance and security costs, and service disruptions for customers.⁴⁴ While the potential salvage value of this copper was recognized, the logistics and cost of recovery were substantial, and the market for recycled copper was volatile.⁴⁶ This created a complex financial picture where the legacy network was simultaneously a depreciating asset, a maintenance liability, and a potential source of salvage revenue, complicating the decision to abandon it.

Operational and Workforce Challenges

The transition from a copper-centric to a fiber-centric operation represented a monumental challenge. The entire operational apparatus of a telco—from its workforce and tools to its maintenance processes and network architecture—was built around copper.⁴⁸ A shift to fiber required a complete overhaul:

• Higher Complexity and Cost: While fiber networks are more reliable and have lower long-term operating expenses (OpEx), the initial installation and repair work is more complex and costly than for copper. Fiber splicing, the process of joining two fiber optic cables, is a delicate procedure that requires specialized, expensive equipment and highly trained technicians, unlike the relatively straightforward process of copper welding.⁴⁹
• Workforce Retraining: The existing workforce consisted of technicians with decades of experience in maintaining copper networks. A transition to fiber necessitated a massive retraining and reskilling effort to equip these technicians with the expertise needed for fiber installation, splicing, and testing.⁵¹ While industry organizations like the Fiber Optic Association (FOA) had been developing training and certification programs since the 1990s, scaling these programs to retrain a national workforce was a significant logistical and financial undertaking.⁵³
• Dual Network Maintenance: During the multi-year transition period, telcos would be forced to bear the significant cost of maintaining two parallel networks: the aging, failure-prone copper plant and the newly deployed fiber network. This duplication of operational expenses created a significant financial drag that further deterred companies from initiating the transition. The operational simplicity and lower long-term maintenance costs of fiber could only be realized after the copper network was fully decommissioned, a distant prospect in the pre-2015 era.⁴⁸

Part II: The Tipping Point – Catalysts of the Modern Fiber Rush

The entrenched reluctance of U.S. telecommunications companies to invest in FTTH began to unravel around 2015, giving way to the aggressive deployment strategies we see today. This transformation was not the result of a single event, but rather a powerful confluence of market, competitive, economic, and policy catalysts that fundamentally re-wrote the business case for fiber. The “good enough” network was no longer sufficient, the competitive threats became existential, and the financial and political winds shifted decisively in favor of a fiber-based future.

2.1 The Unquenchable Thirst for Bandwidth

The most fundamental driver of the fiber rush was an exponential and unrelenting surge in consumer demand for bandwidth. The modest data consumption of the early 2010s gave way to a torrent of data traffic, driven by new applications and behaviors that strained and ultimately broke the capabilities of legacy copper and even some cable networks.

Explosive Growth in Data Consumption

The scale of data consumption growth has been staggering. In 2010, the average U.S. household consumed just 9 GB of data per month. By the fourth quarter of 2023, that figure had skyrocketed to 641 GB—a more than 70-fold increase.² This trend shows no signs of slowing, with projections estimating that average household consumption will surpass 1 Terabyte (1,000 GB) per month by 2028.² This explosive growth rendered the capacity of DSL networks obsolete and began to push the limits of even advanced cable broadband systems, creating a clear market need for a technology with virtually unlimited capacity.

Application-Driven Demand

This growth was not abstract; it was driven by the mainstream adoption of specific, high-bandwidth applications that became central to daily life:

• Streaming Video: The transition from physical media to streaming became the dominant form of entertainment. Platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Disney+ created a massive and constant demand for downstream bandwidth. The shift from high-definition (HD) to 4K Ultra HD content was a critical inflection point, as a single 4K stream can consume 25 Mbps or more of bandwidth, with data usage reaching up to 7 GB per hour.⁵⁶ A household with multiple simultaneous 4K streams could easily saturate a legacy broadband connection.⁵⁸
• Remote Work & Learning: The gradual trend toward remote work accelerated into a societal norm, fundamentally changing the nature of residential broadband demand. Applications like video conferencing, cloud-based collaboration platforms (e.g., Microsoft 365, Google Workspace), and virtual private networks (VPNs) placed an unprecedented premium on upstream bandwidth.⁵⁹ This broke the traditional asymmetric usage model (high download, low upload) for which cable and DSL networks were designed. Fiber’s inherent ability to provide symmetrical speeds—where upload speeds match download speeds—became a critical performance advantage for a huge segment of the workforce.⁶¹
• Connected Devices (IoT): The modern home became a hub of connected devices. The average number of such devices in a U.S. household grew from 13 in 2021 to 17 in 2023, including smart TVs, security cameras, virtual assistants, and gaming consoles, all competing for bandwidth and requiring a stable, low-latency connection.⁵⁶

The COVID-19 Accelerator

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a dramatic, real-world stress test that crystallized these emerging demand patterns and made high-performance broadband a non-negotiable household utility.⁶² Overnight, homes became simultaneous offices, schools, movie theaters, and doctor’s offices, placing unprecedented strain on residential networks.⁶³ Home broadband traffic surged by 20% to 40% in the initial phase of the pandemic.⁶⁴ This mass, forced adoption of a digital-first lifestyle exposed the inadequacies of older technologies and permanently elevated consumer expectations for speed and reliability, solidifying the market demand for fiber-optic connectivity.⁶²

2.2 The Competitive Gauntlet

As demand surged, the competitive landscape intensified dramatically. Incumbent telcos found themselves under assault from multiple directions, transforming the decision to invest in fiber from a strategic choice into a matter of survival.

Market Share Erosion to Cable

Throughout the 2010s, telcos continued to lose a war of attrition against cable providers. Cable’s DOCSIS technology provided a more cost-effective and scalable upgrade path, allowing operators to consistently offer faster speeds than DSL.⁶⁵ This resulted in a steady migration of broadband customers from telcos to cable companies, eroding a core revenue stream and threatening the long-term viability of the telcos’ wireline business.³⁶ Without a technologically superior product to offer, telcos were left competing on price in a race to the bottom or simply abandoning markets to their cable rivals.

The 5G FWA Threat

A new and potent competitive threat emerged from the wireless sector with the launch of 5G Fixed Wireless Access (FWA). Mobile operators, particularly T-Mobile and Verizon, began leveraging their new 5G networks to offer home broadband service that was competitive with lower-tier cable and significantly superior to DSL.⁶⁷ FWA quickly became the fastest-growing segment of the home broadband market, with FWA providers adding over 916,000 net subscribers per quarter in 2023, compared to just 27,000 for cable.⁶⁹ For incumbent telcos, FWA represented a pincer movement: they were losing high-end customers to cable’s superior speeds and now faced losing their remaining DSL and price-sensitive customers to the compelling value proposition of FWA.⁷⁰ This made clinging to legacy copper an untenable long-term strategy.

The Google Fiber Catalyst

While Google Fiber’s physical deployment has been limited to a select number of cities, its market impact has been disproportionately large. By entering markets with a simple, powerful offer—symmetrical gigabit speeds for a flat, competitive price (typically around $70 per month)—Google Fiber fundamentally reset consumer expectations for what home internet could and should be.⁷¹

The mere announcement of Google Fiber’s intent to enter a city often acted as a powerful catalyst for incumbent providers. In markets like Austin, Charlotte, and Nashville, established players like AT&T and Comcast, who had previously offered slower speeds at higher prices, suddenly accelerated their own fiber deployment plans and began marketing their own gigabit services to preempt Google’s entry.⁷³ Google Fiber proved that a latent demand for superior broadband existed and that if incumbents would not serve it, a disruptive competitor would. This “Google Fiber effect” demonstrated that inaction was a greater competitive risk than the high capex of a fiber buildout.⁷⁴

The Rise of Municipal and Private “Overbuilders”

The competitive pressure was further amplified by the emergence of new, well-funded market entrants. A number of municipalities, frustrated with the service from incumbent providers, launched their own successful FTTH networks, proving the viability of alternative models.⁷⁶ More significantly, a new wave of private equity-backed fiber “overbuilders” entered the market, targeting specific regions and building out state-of-the-art fiber networks to compete directly with both cable and telco incumbents.⁷⁶ This influx of new players shattered the traditional duopoly structure in many areas, making fiber availability a key competitive battleground.

2.3 The New Financial Equation

As the strategic need for fiber became undeniable, the financial case for building it improved dramatically. A combination of falling costs, new sources of capital, and innovative business models fundamentally altered the risk-reward profile of FTTH investment.

Falling Deployment Costs

The economics of FTTH deployment have become significantly more favorable since the early days of Verizon’s FiOS. While costs remain substantial and can vary widely depending on geography and construction methods (aerial vs. underground), several factors have driven down the per-household cost. These include technological advancements in construction, such as less invasive micro-trenching; improvements in the cost and efficiency of optical network equipment; and supply chain optimizations driven by the sheer scale of global deployments.⁷⁹ While labor costs, which can account for 60-80% of a project’s budget, have risen and become a primary constraint, the overall cost structure is far more manageable.⁸² Recent data shows that four major telcos averaged a cost of

$1,195 to pass a location with fiber in 2023, a significant reduction from the $2,000+ figures of the previous decade.⁸⁴

A New Investor Appetite for Infrastructure

The post-2015 financial landscape, characterized for many years by low interest rates, saw a massive shift in investor sentiment towards infrastructure as an asset class. Institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds, and private equity firms, seeking stable, long-term, inflation-linked returns, began to aggressively allocate capital to infrastructure projects.⁸⁵ Digital infrastructure—including data centers, cell towers, and fiber networks—emerged as a particularly attractive sub-sector due to its critical role in the modern economy and its predictable, utility-like cash flows. Assets under management (AUM) in the infrastructure class grew at a 16% compound annual growth rate, surpassing $1.1 trillion.⁸⁸ This flood of “patient capital” provided a new and eager source of funding for long-duration fiber projects that had previously been unpalatable to the public markets.

New Ownership and Revenue Models

This influx of private capital enabled new business models that help de-risk FTTH investment for traditional operators. Instead of funding massive builds solely on their own balance sheets, telcos can now partner with infrastructure funds:

• Joint Ventures: A prime example is Gigapower, a joint venture between AT&T and the private equity firm Blackrock. In this model, the partners share the capital burden of building the network, with AT&T serving as the anchor tenant, thereby reducing AT&T’s upfront capex and financial risk.⁸⁹
• Open Access Networks: An increasingly popular model, particularly in Europe and now gaining traction in the U.S., is the “open access” network. In this structure, a neutral infrastructure owner (which could be a municipality, a private fund, or a telco’s wholesale division) builds the physical fiber network and then leases access to multiple retail Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on a wholesale basis.⁸⁹ This separates the high-capex, long-term business of infrastructure ownership from the competitive, customer-facing retail business, attracting investors who want exposure to the underlying asset without the complexities of retail competition.⁸⁹

2.4 A Favorable Policy Environment

The final catalyst was a significant and supportive shift in public policy. Recognizing broadband as essential infrastructure, federal and state governments implemented programs designed to accelerate deployment and bridge the digital divide, directly improving the economics of FTTH builds.

Federal and State Subsidies

The U.S. government made a historic commitment to ensuring universal broadband access, culminating in the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.⁸² This program, along with numerous other federal and state-level initiatives, provides substantial grants and subsidies to network builders to deploy high-speed internet in unserved and underserved areas, which are often high-cost rural communities.⁹⁴ These subsidies fundamentally change the investment calculus for these areas, turning previously unprofitable projects into financially viable opportunities and encouraging telcos to extend their fiber footprints further than their commercial models would otherwise allow.⁹⁵

Shifting Regulatory Priorities

The regulatory focus at the federal level shifted away from the contentious unbundling debates of the past and toward a singular goal: promoting deployment. The BEAD program’s rules and guidelines, while now more technology-neutral, initially contained a strong preference for fiber, correctly identifying it as the most scalable and future-proof technology capable of meeting the nation’s long-term connectivity needs.⁹⁸ This clear policy tailwind provided a strong signal to operators and investors that fiber was the government’s preferred long-term solution, reducing regulatory risk and encouraging long-term investment in FTTH infrastructure.

Table 2: Comparative FTTH Deployment Economics (Pre-2015 vs. Post-2015)

Metric	Pre-2015 Era	Post-2015 Era
Cost per Household Passed	$1,800 – $2,500+ 1	~$1,195 (major telco avg. 2023) 84
Typical Payback Period	15 – 20 years 4	Sub-10 years (with subsidies/JVs)
Primary Funding Source	Corporate Balance Sheet 18	Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, JVs, Subsidies 88
Key Cost Drivers	Electronics, Specialized Labor 1	Labor, Permitting 83
Investor Sentiment	Capex Aversion; Focus on Dividends 1	High Appetite for Long-Term, Stable Assets 85
Government Role	Regulatory (Unbundling) 28	Subsidization (BEAD Program) 98

Part III: The Strategic Imperative – Fiber as the Foundation for Future Growth

The modern rationale for FTTH investment extends far beyond simply providing faster home internet. For today’s telecommunications companies, fiber is viewed as the fundamental strategic platform upon which their entire future will be built. It is the essential underpinning for the next generation of wireless services, a gateway to new high-margin revenue streams beyond the residential consumer, and the catalyst for a much-needed operational transformation. Investing in fiber is no longer just about defending market share; it is about building the foundational infrastructure for a converged digital ecosystem.

3.1 Convergence and the 5G Symbiosis

One of the most powerful strategic drivers for FTTH is its symbiotic relationship with 5G wireless technology. The two networks are not competitors but are deeply intertwined, with the success of one being dependent on the ubiquity of the other.

Fiber as the Prerequisite for 5G

The promises of 5G—ultra-high speeds, massive capacity, and near-instantaneous low latency—cannot be realized without a deep and dense fiber network. Unlike previous wireless generations that relied on large, macro cell towers spaced miles apart, 5G requires a massive densification of the network with thousands of “small cells” placed on utility poles, streetlights, and buildings.¹⁰⁰ Each of these small cells requires a high-capacity connection back to the core network, a function known as “backhaul.” While microwave and other wireless backhaul solutions exist, only fiber can provide the multi-gigabit capacity and low latency required to support the full capabilities of 5G.¹⁰¹ In essence, a 5G network is a fiber network with wireless endpoints; without extensive fiber, 5G is merely an incremental improvement over 4G.

Network Convergence and Cost Savings

Recognizing this dependency, operators are no longer planning their fiber and 5G networks in isolation. Instead, they are pursuing a converged network architecture where a single fiber deployment can serve multiple purposes. A fiber cable run down a residential street can simultaneously provide FTTH connections to homes and businesses while also providing the necessary backhaul for 5G small cells mounted on nearby utility poles.¹⁰¹

This strategy of infrastructure sharing yields enormous economic benefits. Building two separate, parallel fiber networks—one for residential broadband and one for 5G backhaul—would be prohibitively expensive. By planning for both use cases from the outset, operators can achieve massive cost savings. A study by the FTTH Council Europe found that deploying a combined FTTH and 5G network could reduce the total cost by a staggering 65% to 96% compared to building a standalone fiber backhaul network for 5G after the fact.¹⁰⁰ This convergence transforms the business case, allowing the revenue from FTTH subscribers to help subsidize the cost of the 5G rollout, and vice versa.

Enabling Future Services

This converged, fiber-dense 5G network is the essential platform for a host of next-generation services that represent major future growth opportunities. Applications such as autonomous vehicles, augmented reality, remote surgery, and large-scale industrial Internet of Things (IoT) all depend on the unique combination of high bandwidth and ultra-low latency that only a fiber-fed 5G network can provide.¹⁰⁰ By investing in FTTH today, telcos are building the foundational infrastructure required to compete and innovate in the digital economy of the next decade.

3.2 Beyond the Home: Unlocking Adjacent Revenue Streams

A ubiquitous FTTH network is a versatile asset that can be monetized in numerous ways beyond selling internet subscriptions to residential customers. This diversification of revenue streams is a key component of the modern fiber investment thesis, allowing operators to “stack” multiple business cases onto a single infrastructure build.

Enterprise and Business Services

The same fiber that passes homes can be used to serve nearby businesses, from small storefronts to large corporate campuses. Enterprise connectivity is a high-margin business, and fiber enables telcos to offer a suite of premium services, including dedicated internet access with service level agreements (SLAs), high-speed point-to-point connections, SD-WAN, and secure VPN services.¹⁰³ By leveraging their residential FTTH builds, operators can cost-effectively extend their reach into the lucrative business market, challenging cable and other enterprise-focused providers.

Wireless Backhaul Leasing

An operator with a dense fiber network can become a “carrier’s carrier” by leasing capacity to other service providers. This is particularly relevant for mobile backhaul. Wireless carriers that lack their own deep fiber footprint will need to lease fiber connections to densify their 5G networks. An operator that has already deployed FTTH is perfectly positioned to meet this demand, selling either “dark fiber” (unlit strands of glass) or “lit” wholesale services to other mobile operators, creating a significant and stable wholesale revenue stream.¹⁰⁵ The global 5G wireless backhaul market is projected to grow substantially, reaching over $5.7 billion by 2030, representing a major opportunity for fiber infrastructure owners.¹⁰⁷

Smart City Applications

Fiber is the essential nervous system for the modern “smart city.” A dense fiber network provides the connectivity backbone for a wide range of municipal applications, including ¹⁰⁸:

• Intelligent Transportation Systems: Connecting traffic signals, sensors, and cameras to optimize traffic flow and support connected and autonomous vehicles.
• Smart Lighting: Networked LED streetlights that can be dimmed or brightened based on real-time conditions, saving significant energy costs.
• Public Safety: High-definition video surveillance networks and real-time data feeds for first responders.
• Utility Management: Smart grids and smart water meters that improve efficiency and reduce waste.
  These applications create opportunities for telcos to form public-private partnerships with municipalities, generating new revenue streams by building and managing the underlying connectivity infrastructure.108

3.3 Operational Transformation: Building Faster and Smarter

The scale and pace of the current fiber land grab have forced telecommunications companies to fundamentally re-engineer their construction and deployment capabilities. The slow, methodical approach of the past has been replaced by a focus on speed, efficiency, and scalability.

Evolved Construction Capabilities

The physical process of deploying fiber has evolved significantly. Companies are now leveraging advanced data analytics and AI-powered planning tools to optimize their build strategies. These tools can analyze a vast array of variables—including population density, household income, existing infrastructure (e.g., utility poles and underground ducts), labor costs, and competitor footprints—to identify markets that offer the best balance of low construction costs and high potential customer penetration.¹¹⁰ This data-driven approach allows operators to target their investments more precisely, improving the return on invested capital. Construction techniques have also advanced, with methods like micro-trenching allowing for faster and less disruptive installation compared to traditional excavation.¹¹¹

Strategic Partnerships and Outsourcing

To meet aggressive deployment targets, telcos are increasingly moving away from a vertically integrated, do-it-all model and embracing a web of strategic partnerships. On the financial side, this includes joint ventures with infrastructure funds to share the capital burden, as seen with AT&T’s Gigapower.⁹⁰ On the operational side, operators are forming long-term partnerships with specialized engineering, construction, and asset recovery firms.¹¹² This allows the telco to focus on its core competencies—network architecture, marketing, and customer service—while leveraging the expertise and scale of partners to execute the physical build-out more efficiently.

Workforce Development

A critical bottleneck for the rapid expansion of fiber is the availability of a skilled workforce.⁹⁹ Recognizing that labor constraints can directly impact deployment speed and cost, there is a renewed industry-wide focus on workforce development. This includes creating internal training programs to reskill existing copper technicians for fiber, as well as partnering with community colleges, technical schools, and organizations like the Fiber Optic Association to build a sustainable pipeline of new, certified fiber technicians.⁵³ These initiatives are essential to ensuring that the industry has the human capital required to build and maintain the next generation of communication networks.

Part IV: Analytical Framework and Strategic Outlook

The industry-s wide pivot to FTTH represents a multi-hundred-billion-dollar wager on the future of connectivity. This final section synthesizes the preceding analysis to evaluate the impact of this investment on financial performance, competitive positioning, and long-term value creation. It provides a forward-looking perspective on the new competitive battleground and the strategic imperatives for success in the fiber era.

4.1 Financial Performance and Market Valuation

The early data from the fiber transition indicates that the investment is yielding superior financial and customer-level results compared to legacy networks, a trend that is beginning to be recognized by the market.

Superior ARPU and Lower Churn

Fiber customers are demonstrably more valuable than their DSL counterparts. They generate a higher Average Revenue Per User (ARPU), driven by their willingness to subscribe to higher-speed, higher-priced service tiers. For example, Frontier Communications reported a 10% year-over-year increase in its fiber ARPU, largely due to customers upgrading to gigabit-speed plans.¹¹³

Furthermore, fiber customers are “stickier.” Because the service is technologically superior and more reliable, customers are less likely to switch providers. This results in significantly lower monthly churn rates compared to copper-based services.¹¹⁴ The combination of higher revenue and lower churn means that the lifetime value of a fiber customer is substantially greater than that of a DSL customer, which is a critical factor in justifying the high upfront installation cost.¹¹⁵

Higher Customer Satisfaction

The superior performance of fiber translates directly into higher customer satisfaction. In survey after survey, fiber internet consistently receives the highest satisfaction scores among all broadband technologies, far outpacing cable and especially DSL.⁶¹ In the 2024 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), AT&T’s fiber service scored 80%, while its legacy DSL service scored only 69%.⁷² A recent study found that nearly two-thirds of all U.S. consumers perceive fiber as the best method for internet service delivery in terms of speed and reliability.¹¹⁷ This strong brand perception and positive customer experience create a virtuous cycle of higher adoption, greater loyalty, and enhanced pricing power.

Table 3: Performance Metrics Comparison: Fiber vs. Copper/DSL

Performance Metric	Fiber (FTTH)	Copper (DSL)
Typical Download/Upload Speed	1 Gbps – 8 Gbps Symmetrical 61	3 Mbps – 100 Mbps (Asymmetrical) 7
Average Revenue Per User (ARPU)	$61.44 (Frontier example, with downward pressure from promos) 114	Lower than fiber (due to lower speed tiers and competitive pressure)
Monthly Churn Rate	1.20% (Frontier example) 114	Higher than fiber (due to lower satisfaction and performance)
Customer Satisfaction Score (ACSI)	80% (AT&T Fiber example) 72	69% (AT&T DSL example) 72

Impact on Valuation and Investor Sentiment

While the telecom sector as a whole has faced valuation headwinds, the market is beginning to differentiate between legacy-heavy operators and those with a clear path to a fiber-centric future. There is a growing recognition among investors that fiber assets represent a source of long-term, sustainable, and infrastructure-like growth. The residential fiber segment is growing at a much faster rate (16.7% year-over-year for a selection of telcos) than the overall residential telecom segment (4.2% YoY), highlighting the value-accretive nature of the fiber transition.⁸⁴ Moreover, the economic benefits of fiber extend beyond the operator’s balance sheet; the availability of fiber broadband has been shown to increase home values, contributing to broader economic growth and a more robust tax base in the communities served.⁹⁶

4.2 The New Competitive Battleground

The widespread deployment of fiber is fundamentally reshaping the competitive landscape of the U.S. broadband market, moving it from a state of technological asymmetry to one of intense, direct competition between highly capable networks.

From Differentiator to Necessity

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, Verizon’s FiOS was a powerful differentiator, a premium product in a sea of slower DSL and cable offerings. Today, in a growing number of markets, having an FTTH product is no longer a differentiator—it is table stakes. A telco without a credible fiber deployment strategy is competitively indefensible, vulnerable to being permanently outclassed by cable providers’ DOCSIS 4.0 upgrades, aggressive fiber overbuilders, and even high-capacity 5G FWA.⁸² The strategic question for telco leadership has shifted from

if they should build fiber to where and how fast they can build it to remain relevant.¹¹⁹

Offensive vs. Defensive Strategy

For incumbent telcos, the investment in fiber is simultaneously a defensive and an offensive maneuver.

• Defensive: It is a necessary measure to defend their remaining wireline subscriber base from further erosion to cable and to counter the threat of FWA in the price-sensitive segment of the market. It is about staunching the bleeding and stabilizing the core business.
• Offensive: For the first time in decades, FTTH gives telcos a product that is technologically superior to cable’s HFC network, particularly with respect to upload speeds and latency.⁶¹ This allows them to go on the offensive, targeting and winning high-value broadband customers who were previously captive to the cable monopoly. This shift from a defensive posture to an offensive one is a key element of the strategic rationale for fiber investment.

The Future of Competition

The endgame of the current deployment cycle will be a market structure fundamentally different from that of the last 20 years. In most suburban and urban markets, the primary wireline competition will be a head-to-head battle between a cable operator’s upgraded HFC/fiber network and a telco’s all-fiber FTTH network. 5G FWA will serve as a third competitor, primarily targeting customers based on price, simplicity, and flexibility. DSL, for all practical purposes, will be a legacy technology in managed decline, relegated to the most rural and high-cost areas where it has not yet been replaced or overbuilt.

4.3 Strategic Recommendations and Future Trajectory

As the fiber land grab matures, the focus of telecom operators and their investors must evolve from deployment metrics to value creation and long-term sustainability.

Focus on Monetization

With the initial build cycle well underway, the key challenge will shift from passing homes to connecting them and maximizing their value. This requires a sophisticated approach to monetization that goes beyond simply building the network.⁹⁰ Success will depend on:

• Effective Go-to-Market Strategies: Targeted, hyper-local marketing and promotion efforts are needed to drive take rates in newly built areas.
• Simplified Pricing and Product Tiers: Complicated pricing plans can confuse customers and delay adoption. A simple, transparent pricing structure (e.g., small, medium, large) is more effective.⁹⁰
• Partnerships: Collaborating with content providers, smart home companies, and other digital service providers can create compelling bundles that increase ARPU and reduce churn.

The Role of Consolidation

The current fiber market is highly fragmented, with a multitude of smaller, private-equity-backed overbuilders operating alongside the large incumbent carriers. As the most attractive build opportunities are exhausted, a wave of consolidation is highly probable.⁹⁰ Larger players with access to cheaper capital and greater operational scale will likely acquire smaller regional providers to expand their footprint and eliminate competition. This will lead to a more concentrated market, but one based on competition between multiple fiber networks rather than a duopoly of different technologies.

Valuing Optionality

Finally, the true long-term value of a ubiquitous fiber network lies in its inherent optionality. Fiber is a “future-proof” asset with nearly unlimited capacity.⁵² It is a platform that can support applications and services that have not yet been invented. While this strategic value is difficult to capture in a traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) model, it is a core part of the investment thesis for long-term infrastructure investors.¹²⁰ The companies that build and control this foundational layer of the digital economy will be best positioned to capture the value of future technological innovations, whatever they may be. The investment in fiber is not just a bet on the future of broadband; it is a bet on the future of everything that will be built on top of it.

Works cited

1. FTTx: An Unreal reality takes shape – The Broadband Group, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.broadbandgroup.com/fttx-an-unreal-reality-takes-shape/
2. Broadband – Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, accessed July 30, 2025, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Broadband.pdf
3. Payback period for investments: how and why to calculate it? – Sensorfact – smart monitoring for industry, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.sensorfact.eu/blog/payback-period-for-investments-how-and-why-to-calculate-it/
4. Making the economics of fiber work for telecoms operators – TM Forum Inform, accessed July 30, 2025, https://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-opinion/making-the-economics-of-fiber-work-for-telecoms-operators
5. Fiber networks: Faster payback means Better Connected – Huawei Publications, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.huawei.com/en/huaweitech/publication/winwin/28/fiber-networks-faster-payback-means-better-connected
6. OFF-BALANCE FINANCING OF THE FIBER NETWORK AT REGGERFIBER: A CASE STUDY – University of Twente Student Theses, accessed July 30, 2025, https://essay.utwente.nl/67031/1/Schrijver_MA_MB.pdf
7. BroadBand Performance – Federal Communications Commission, accessed July 30, 2025, https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/broadband-performance-paper.pdf
8. Fiber to the Home (FTTH) guide | IQGeo, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.iqgeo.com/guides-and-templates/fiber-to-the-home
9. Why Knowing It’s “Fiber” is Not Enough – Telogical Systems, accessed July 30, 2025, http://www.telogicalsystems.com/blog/fttn-vs-ftth
10. Choosing the right network technologies access mix – McKinsey, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Telecoms/PDFs/Choosing_network_technology_May-2012.ashx
11. The Effect of Deregulation on Market Concentration: an Analysis of the Telecom Act of 1996 and the Industry Meltdown, accessed July 30, 2025, https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/CITI/Articles/The%20Effect%20of%20Deregulation%20on%20Market%20Concentration%20an%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Telecom%20Act%20of%201996%20and%20the%20Industry%20Meltdown.pdf
12. Dot-com bubble – Wikipedia, accessed July 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
13. A revealing look at the dot-com bubble of 2000 — and how it shapes our lives today |, accessed July 30, 2025, https://ideas.ted.com/an-eye-opening-look-at-the-dot-com-bubble-of-2000-and-how-it-shapes-our-lives-today/
14. The Nature of Telecom Capex. | techneconomyblog, accessed July 30, 2025, https://techneconomyblog.com/2022/07/06/the-nature-of-telecom-capex/
15. 2025 telecom industry outlook | Deloitte Insights, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-telecom-outlooks/telecommunications-industry-outlook-2025.html
16. AT&T vs. Verizon in 7 Charts: Sales, Dividends & More, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.dividend.com/how-to-invest/7-charts-that-compare-att-and-verizon-t-vz/
17. 2015 Annual Report | Verizon, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/15_vz_ar.pdf
18. Why AT&T and Verizon Communications Are Selling Over $12.6 Billion Worth of Assets, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/15/why-att-and-verizon-communications-are-selling-ove.aspx
19. The great Verizon FiOS ripoff – Nieman Watchdog, accessed July 30, 2025, http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=631
20. Reshaping telecom investment in a next-generation world | Arthur D. Little, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/reshaping-telecom-investment-next-generation-world
21. The Nature of Telecom Capex – a 2023 Update. – techneconomyblog, accessed July 30, 2025, https://techneconomyblog.com/2023/07/11/the-nature-of-telecom-capex-2023-update/
22. AT&T and Verizon lead nation in 2015 capex, but tightened it in 2016 | Wireless Estimator, accessed July 30, 2025, https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2016/att-and-verizon-lead-nation-in-2015-capex-but-tightened-it-in-2016/
23. AT&T, Verizon top capex spenders in 2015, study finds | Fierce Network, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-top-capex-spenders-2015-study-finds
24. Full article: Internet regulation and investment in the U.S. telecommunications industry, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00036846.2024.2439584?af=R
25. A Critical Evaluation of Telecommunication Act 1996 – Scientific …, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.scirp.org/pdf/JSSM20080100008_20661775.pdf
26. The Impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the Broadband Age – ResearchGate, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281389845_The_Impact_of_the_Telecommunications_Act_of_1996_in_the_Broadband_Age
27. Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-Generation Networks and Services – Federal Register, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/08/2020-25254/modernizing-unbundling-and-resale-requirements-in-an-era-of-next-generation-networks-and-services
28. Innovation, Investment, and Unbundling, accessed July 30, 2025, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/7982/05_17YaleJonReg1_2000_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
29. Section 251 Network Unbundling | Federal Communications Commission, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fcc.gov/general/section-251-network-unbundling
30. 1 Separate Statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell Dissenting in Part Re: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of In – Federal Communications Commission, accessed July 30, 2025, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-231344A3.pdf
31. The FCC’s Triennial Review Order: A “Brief” Summary | Insights | Davis Wright Tremaine, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.dwt.com/insights/2003/08/the-fccs-triennial-review-order-a-brief-summary
32. Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 19: The Positive Effects of Unbundling on Broadband Deployment, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP19Final.pdf
33. Do Unbundling Policies Discourage CLEC Facilities-Based Investment – Brookings Institution, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20040429-2.pdf
34. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY Re: Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange C, accessed July 30, 2025, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-04-191A3.pdf
35. Triennial Review: A New Era for the State-Federal Telecommunications Partnership – Catholic Law Scholarship Repository, accessed July 30, 2025, https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=commlaw
36. FCC’s broadband market share data shows urban/rural technology …, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.tellusventure.com/fccs-broadband-market-share-data-shows-urban-rural-technology-divide-and-decline-of-dsl/
37. AT&T Internet – Wikipedia, accessed July 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Internet
38. FTTP vs FTTN for Video on Demand : r/networking – Reddit, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/1y1kbn/fttp_vs_fttn_for_video_on_demand/
39. Comparing the Fiber Strategies of the Big Three U.S. Mobile Operators, accessed July 30, 2025, https://blog.telegeography.com/the-final-frontier-comparing-the-fiber-strategies-of-the-big-three-us-mobile-operators
40. UN says booming solar, wind and other green energy hits global tipping point for ever lower costs – The Economic Times, accessed July 30, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/industry/renewables/un-says-booming-solar-wind-and-other-green-energy-hits-global-tipping-point-for-ever-lower-costs/articleshow/122841042.cms
41. From Stranded Assets to Assets-at-Risk: | I4CE, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.i4ce.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/From-Stranded-Assets-to-Assets-at-Risk.pdf
42. Considerations for climate stranded assets – KPMG International, accessed July 30, 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/considerations-for-climate-stranded-assets.html
43. Accounting, Financial Reporting, and Rate Filing Requirements for Asset Retirement Obligations, RM02-7-000, Order No. 631, issue – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/RM02-7-04-09-03.pdf
44. Vandalism Of Network Infrastructure: Theft Of Assets – MITRE | FiGHT™, accessed July 30, 2025, https://fight.mitre.org/techniques/FGT5018.004/
45. The Growing Crisis of Copper Theft – USTelecom, accessed July 30, 2025, https://ustelecom.org/the-growing-crisis-of-copper-theft/
46. Copper Tariff Threats Trigger Unprecedented Market Volatility – Discovery Alert, accessed July 30, 2025, https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/copper-tariff-crisis-2025-market-impact/
47. Copper-bottomed booms and busts – Winton, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.winton.com/news/copper-bottomed-booms-and-busts
48. Copper vs Fiber Optic Cable | Upgrading Network Infrastructure – Corning, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.corning.com/optical-communications/worldwide/en/home/the-signal-network-blog/copper-versus-fiber.html
49. www.researchgate.net, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4361562_FTTH_deployment_and_its_impact_on_network_maintenance_and_repair_costs#:~:text=In%20operations%20we%20face%20a,leading%20to%20lower%20failure%20rates.
50. Fiber Optic vs. Copper Cables: Differences & How to Choose – FMUSER, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fmradiobroadcast.com/article/detail/fiber-optic-cable-vs-copper-cable-guide.html
51. Verizon’s Migration from Copper to Fiber (June 2020) | Cable and Consumer Services, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cableconsumer/cable/verizons-migration-from-copper-to-fiber-aug-2016
52. The Switch from Legacy Copper to Fiber – Primex Manufacturing, accessed July 30, 2025, https://primex.com/the-switch-from-legacy-copper-to-fiber/
53. Fiber Optic Cable Installer – Job Training – Cape Fear Community College, accessed July 30, 2025, https://cfcc.edu/job-training/network-cable-installer/
54. Fiber Optic Technician Training – Adult Center, accessed July 30, 2025, https://adult.tricounty.cc/programs/fiber
55. A History – Fiber Optic Association, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.thefoa.org/foa-history.html
56. How the FCC Got to 100/20 | Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.benton.org/blog/how-fcc-got-10020
57. Data Consumption: Netflix vs. Spotify vs. YouTube – Viasat Satellite Internet, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.rsinc.com/data-consumption-netflix-vs-spotify-vs-youtube.php
58. Netflix-recommended internet speeds, accessed July 30, 2025, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
59. Rise of Remote Work and Its Impact on Housing Demand – Off The MRKT, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.offthemrkt.com/lifestyle/rise-of-remote-work-and-its-impact-on-housing-demand
60. How Broadband Is Shaping the Work-From-Home Landscape – Comms Link, accessed July 30, 2025, https://comms-link.com/broadband/broadband-shaping-work-from-home-landscape/
61. DSL vs. Fiber Internet: Which One Is Right for You? – HighSpeedInternet.com, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/dsl-vs-fiber
62. Federal Communications Commission Connecting Opportunity Communities to Broadband During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/cedc-digital-empowerment-inclusion-wg-broadband-access-report-06152023.pdf
63. COVID-19 and Rural Broadband: A Call to Action or More of the Same? – Choices Magazine, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/rural-development-implications-one-year-after-covid-19/covid-19-and-rural-broadband-a-call-to-action-or-more-of-the-same
64. Lessons From the Pandemic: Broadband Policy After COVID-19 | ITIF, accessed July 30, 2025, https://itif.org/publications/2020/07/13/lessons-pandemic-broadband-policy-after-covid-19/
65. The State of US Broadband in 2022: Reassessing the Whole Picture | ITIF, accessed July 30, 2025, https://itif.org/publications/2022/12/05/state-of-us-broadband-in-2022-reassessing-the-whole-picture/
66. Cable Broadband Technology Gigabit Evolution – CableLabs, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.cablelabs.com/insights/cable-broadband-technology-gigabit-evolution
67. Is 5G FWA really disrupting the fixed broadband market? – GSMA Intelligence, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/blogs/is-5g-fwa-really-disrupting-the-fixed-broadband-market
68. Is 5G Fixed Wireless Access for Broadband Too Good to Be True or Too Good to Pass Up?, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.mpdigest.com/2023/07/21/is-5g-fixed-wireless-access-for-broadband-too-good-to-be-true-or-too-good-to-pass-up/
69. 5G Home Broadband Continues to Bring Real Competition to Cable – CTIA, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.ctia.org/news/5g-home-broadband-continues-to-bring-real-competition-to-cable
70. 5G Fixed Wireless and the Threat to Cable’s US Dominance – Dell’Oro Group, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.delloro.com/5g-fixed-wireless-and-the-threat-to-cables-us-dominance/
71. Google Fiber in Austin – Anthony J. Pennings, PhD, accessed July 30, 2025, https://apennings.com/telecom-policy/google-fiber-in-austin/
72. Google Fiber vs. AT&T Fiber: Comparing Internet Speeds, Pricing, and More In the Fiber Fight – CableTV.com, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.cabletv.com/internet/google-fiber-vs-att-fiber
73. Partners Weigh In On Google Fiber Impact As The Telecom Industry Arms Itself For Disruption | CRN, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.crn.com/news/networking/300081186/partners-weigh-in-on-google-fiber-impact-as-the-telecom-industry-arms-itself-for-disruption
74. How Big a Threat Is Google Wireless to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile? | Fox Business, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-big-a-threat-is-google-wireless-to-att-verizon-sprint-and-t-mobile
75. accessed January 1, 1970, https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/op-ed-how-google-fiber-is-disrupting-the-broadband-market/
76. 1 Municipal Fiber in the United States: A Financial Assessment …, accessed July 30, 2025, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3448&context=faculty_scholarship
77. Municipal Broadband Networks—Opportunities, Business Models, Challenges, and Case Studies – International Finance Corporation, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt/em-compass-note-107-municipal-broadband-networks-for-web.pdf
78. Municipal fiber in the United States: A financial assessment – ResearchGate, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357991944_Municipal_fiber_in_the_United_States_A_financial_assessment
79. Cost Estimates for FTTP Network Construction – Tellus Venture …, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/santacruz/ctc_santa_cruz_ftth_estimate_may2015.pdf
80. Global Fiber Development Index: 2020 – World Broadband Association, accessed July 30, 2025, https://worldbroadbandassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FDI-White-Paper-Final_151020.pdf
81. accessed January 1, 1970, https://www.fiberbroadband.org/blog/the-evolution-of-ftth-deployment-costs-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-broadband/
82. How US FTTH providers can navigate an evolving market – EY, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/telecommunications/how-us-ftth-providers-can-navigate-an-evolving-market
83. Fiber Broadband Association Releases Annual Fiber Deployment Cost Study, accessed July 30, 2025, https://fiberbroadband.org/2025/02/06/fiber-broadband-association-releases-annual-fiber-deployment-cost-study/
84. The State of US Fiber Broadband – S&P Global, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/the-state-of-us-fiber-broadband
85. Global listed infrastructure – structural changes in asset class create opportunities – LSEG, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/documents/research/global-listed-infrastructure.pdf
86. Infrastructure investors set to increase allocations in the long term – Private Equity Wire, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.privateequitywire.co.uk/webform/infrastructure-investors-increase-allocations/
87. Digging In: Assessing the Private Infrastructure Opportunity Today – Cambridge Associates, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/insight/assessing-private-infrastructure-opportunity-today/
88. Trends in infrastructure: An evolving asset class – DLA Piper, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/-/media/project/dlapiper-tenant/dlapiper/pdf/infrastructure-funds-report-ict-thought-leadership-2024.pdf?rev=-1
89. Open Access Fiber Networks Poised to Shake Up U.S. Broadband …, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.cobank.com/corporate/news/2023/open-access-fiber-networks-poised-to-shake-up-us-broadband-market
90. Monetizing fiber deployment: How to drive value through partnerships, pricing, and promotion | AlixPartners, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.alixpartners.com/insights/102ip33/monetizing-fiber-deployment-how-to-drive-value-through-partnerships-pricing-an/
91. Open Access | Welcome to Community Networks, accessed July 30, 2025, https://communitynets.org/content/open-access
92. Open Access Broadband Networks in the United States – BroadbandNow, accessed July 30, 2025, https://broadbandnow.com/research/open-access-networks
93. accessed January 1, 1970, https://www.bbcmag.com/opinion/the-rise-of-open-access-fiber-networks
94. The benefits and costs of broadband expansion – Brookings Institution, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-benefits-and-costs-of-broadband-expansion/
95. Statement by Michael R. Romano Senior Vice President – Industry Affairs & Business Development NTCA–The Rural Broadband, accessed July 30, 2025, https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/6-22-17_romano_testimony.pdf
96. Economic Impacts of Broadband Access and Availability – Extension St. Croix County, accessed July 30, 2025, https://stcroix.extension.wisc.edu/files/2016/05/Economic-Impacts-of-Broadband-Access-and-Availability.pptx
97. Measuring the Economic Impact of Broadband – BroadbandUSA, accessed July 30, 2025, https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/bbusa_webinar_presentation_190918.pdf
98. NTIA: Off to the BEAD Benefit of the Bargain Round – Telecompetitor, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.telecompetitor.com/ntia-off-to-the-bead-benefit-of-the-bargain-round/
99. The State Of The North American Fiber Deployment – January 2025, accessed July 30, 2025, https://fiberbroadband.org/resources/the-state-of-the-north-american-fiber-deployment-january-2025/
100. FTTH vs. 5G: Fibre and Wireless Convergence, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.ftthcouncil.eu/knowledge-centre/blog/ftth-vs-5g-fibre-and-wireless-convergence
101. What is 5G and broadband convergence? – Rethink Technology Research, accessed July 30, 2025, https://rethinkresearch.biz/wireless/faqs/what-is-convergence/
102. FTTH-5G network convergence: How to optimize network designs | IQGeo, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.iqgeo.com/ebooks-and-white-papers/ftth-5g-network-convergence-how-to-optimize-network-designs
103. Fiber to the x – Wikipedia, accessed July 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x
104. Fiber to the Home (FTTH): A Comprehensive Guide – Dgtl Infra, accessed July 30, 2025, https://dgtlinfra.com/fiber-to-the-home-ftth/
105. What Is Dark Fiber? Use Cases, Pros, and Cons – Lightyear.ai, accessed July 30, 2025, https://lightyear.ai/blogs/what-is-dark-fiber-use-cases-pros-and-cons
106. Wireless and Mobile Backhaul Equipment Market Size Report – 2032, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/wireless-and-mobile-backhaul-equipment-market
107. 5G Wireless Backhaul Market Insights: Trends, Forecast 2030 – Knowledge Sourcing Intelligence, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/5g-wireless-backhaul-market
108. Fiber Infrastructure: The Foundation of Smart City Services and Sustainable Urban Development – Pivot Tech, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.pivot-tech.io/post/fiber-infrastructure-the-foundation-of-smart-city-services-and-sustainable-urban-development
109. Driving Urban Innovation Through Robust Fiber Networks – GEOGRAPH Technologies, accessed July 30, 2025, https://geograph.tech/blog/municipal-government/urban-innovation-fiber-networks/
110. The keys to deploying fiber networks faster and cheaper – McKinsey, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/the-keys-to-deploying-fiber-networks-faster-and-cheaper
111. Telecommunications Construction: All You Need to Know – The Network Installers, accessed July 30, 2025, https://thenetworkinstallers.com/blog/telecommunications-construction/
112. PRYSMIAN INVESTS IN RELATIVITY NETWORKS TO ESTABLISH A LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.prysmian.com/en/media/press-releases/prysmian-invests-in-relativity-networks-to-establish-a-long-term-partnership
113. Frontier Broadband: Record Fiber Builds, ARPU Gains, But DSL Puts a Drag on Results, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.telecompetitor.com/frontier-broadband-record-fiber-builds-arpu-gains-but-dsl-puts-a-drag-on-results/
114. Fiber vs Copper Broadband – IEEE ComSoc Technology Blog, accessed July 30, 2025, https://techblog.comsoc.org/category/fiber-vs-copper-broadband/
115. Average revenue per user (ARPU) vs Churn rate – AppsFlyer, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.appsflyer.com/metrics-comparison/arpu-vs-churn-rate/
116. Choosing Between Cable and Fiber Internet: What Helped Me Decide – CNET, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/choosing-between-cable-and-fiber-internet-what-helped-me-decide/
117. Fiber Preferred by Nearly Two-Thirds of U.S. Consumers – Fiber Broadband Association, accessed July 30, 2025, https://fiberbroadband.org/2024/01/04/fiber-preferred-by-nearly-two-thirds-of-u-s-consumers/
118. Documenting The Economic Benefits of Fiber in 2024 – Fiber Broadband Association, accessed July 30, 2025, https://fiberbroadband.org/2025/03/28/documenting-the-economic-benefits-of-fiber-in-2024/
119. Business and ownership model case studies for next generation FTTH deployment DISCUS white paper – Light Reading, accessed July 30, 2025, https://img.lightreading.com/downloads/Business-and-ownership-model-case-studies-for-next-generation-FTTH-deployment.pdf
120. (PDF) Real Options in Telecom Infrastructure Projects — A Tutorial – ResearchGate, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248386765_Real_Options_in_Telecom_Infrastructure_Projects_-_A_Tutorial