[TacticalCoder]

> nor is it a literal mile.

The cost problem of the last mile is not for the 2 meters between the fiber router in the home and the living room. The issue with the "last mile" is that it used to be excessively expensive to lay fiber everywhere on the, literally, last mile outside people's home.

I could plug a network card with an SFP port and have actual "fiber to the desktop" for the last three meters at my place but I don't. I'm not sure that these three meters where I run ethernet are called a "last mile" (off by a factor of 530x calling 3 meters compared to a mile) ad mean I don't have FTTH or that the last mile ain't fiber.

> ... most residential bandwidth increasingly comes from wireless techs.

What good does it make to laptops and phones using WiFi if the router is doing 40 Mbps max over DSL? It's once you bump that DSL link to FTTH that suddenly all these wireless devices can enjoy much faster speeds. In all the countries I've lived in people at home used WiFi, even from their phone, instead of 4G because 4G means lots of $$$ / EUR.

I think you're underestimating the gigantic speed boost many people are enjoying thanks to fiber (and not thanks to 4G) now that they're having FTTH.

[xedrac]

I recently switched from a supposed 900 Mbps Comcast connection to FTTH, and the difference is astonishing. There's just no substitute for Fiber.

[throw0101c]

> The cost problem of the last mile is not for the 2 meters between the fiber router in the home and the living room. The issue with the "last mile" is that it used to be excessively expensive to lay fiber everywhere on the, literally, last mile outside people's home.

And yet it was done for electricity and telephones over a century ago. And fibre probably has a longer 'shelf-life' as it does not corrode, so the initial installation is more likely to last longer.