While most businesses and a few video download enthusiasts would be keen to get fibre-to-the-premises installed, most of us would not need it nor want to pay the serious costs of getting it installed in our home when ADSL2 is already fast and fine for most purposes, and even 4G/LTE mobile options are quite a dazzling improvement over 3G – although mobile data fees here are an insult to the consumer compared with charges in Europe. And who does not expect another technology increment to get performance up yet further before long?
When they put fibre down your street, do you realize the feed-in duct from the street pit will have to be bored underground beneath pavement and your garden up to the wall of your home – usually below where the telephone feeds in at your roofline. That will cost significant bucks. Next a connection box on the outside wall will cost you. You will also pay to get duct carrying ethernet and two good quality phone lines or some other high bandwidth medium into your roof space. You will also pay for another interface box inside (probably in your roof space) to which electrical power must be connected. Ducting will then be needed to connect that to your LAN. Now do you really want to pay for all that when ADSL2 (or perhaps ADSL3 by then) gives you all the speed and bandwidth you need? Fibre-to-the-Street makes sense because ADSL technologies share bandwidth and too many users will cut into performance but fibre-to-the-premises is for the rather-well-off alongside the luxury European cars in their garages.