It's been 4 short years since this page was revised. It's amazing how much has happened in that time span. Much of what was on this page in now obsolete. Rural users may continue to use this now ancient technology from the 1900's but at ever increasing cost. The world has moved on with IP and radio transport dominating delivery of communications services to rural areas. The author of this site now communicates by way of VOIP technology with direct logical lines from Denver (300 miles) and Grand Junction (75 miles) which is a feat not likely in the PCM land line world except at great cost. Both in terms of business opportunities as well as education, the new VOIP technologies provide very significant opportunities if both areas.

Old school telephone companies (ie. Qwest, TDS) have adopted a broadband service delivery method that uses their existing and often badly deteriorated metallic cable resources rather than installing new fiber facilities. In my view, this approach only frustrates the educational and economic development of communities and reduces general property values. For many old school telcos, DSL is the delivery method of choice. The reach of a typical rural DSL circuit is approximately 18,500 cable pair feet or a little over three miles. These circuits are typically delivered from existing central offices or remote terminals. For the fortunate, remote terminals are fed with high speed high capacity fiber. This is generally not the case, however, for old rural installations. In contrast, a typical fiber distribution circuit is good for approximately 12 miles or approximately four times the distance but supports infinitely higher data rates than any DSL service.

Major players here are Time Warner/Comcast & AT&T. For a technical explanation of the latest cable technology, search Google for "DOCSIS 3.0". Details of AT&T's/Microsoft's U-Verse technology can also be found by searching Google for "U-Verse". Many feel that the DOCSIS 3.0 technology, once fully implemented, will clearly out class and out perform the U-Verse technology. Neither, of course, approach the capabilities of a well designed all fiber system. Real world experiences of customers trying to use the U-Verse are available on the TMCnet blog site. In my view, neither technology is appropriate for rural areas because of the distances involved in rural environments.

While virtually all current rural Colorado operators, including Qwest and TDS, invest as little money as possible in their rural systems to deliver the least acceptable service possible, a few companies are achieving what really neeeds to be happen. A recent report on Jaguar Communications, a Minnesota based rural telecom provider, shows what can be accomplished when you really try.

Again, old school telcos typically purchase equipment from manufacturers that have supported their past obsolete wire facilities. Bell related companies typically purchase from the Alcatel/Lucent manufacturing group (products are currently designed and produced elsewhere). Non-Bell, non-public telcos use manufacturers such as Advanced Fiber Communications (now defunct and replaced with Tellabs). COOPS and public companies typically purchase from domestic sources such as Occam Networks.Bell and non-Bell telcos have resisted using any type of wireless technology to deliver broadband services. This has not been the case for public telcos.

Rather than support public broadband or publically owned infrastructure, the State of Colorado, in it's infinite wisdom, entered into a partnership with Qwest to build a statewide mostly rural fiber network. This network is known as the "Colorado High Speed Digital Network". The original intent was to provide broadband services for rural schools, governments, libraries and hospitals. The public could also use the network for a price. Compared to the Utah system, however, the CHSDN has proven to be much less lucrative for the general public. A recent failure of the CHSDN has brought the reliability of Qwest provided services into question.

It's quite common for telco carriers to refuse installtion of broadband services in rural areas due to high install costs and low return margins. When local citizens get fed up with this situation, they sometimes try to install the needed services on their own. The same telcos then typically mount a legal fight to block any such action. In my view, telcos have had the opportunity to be heros or be bums. In my experience, they have almost universally chosen to be total and complete bums. Fortunately, I have had the choice to not use the local telco for anything for over a year now. It would do my heart good to see the bums go totally broke and leave this area.

• XDSL Types Explained
• AT&T Retirement
• The Bush Promise
• Public Controlled Broadband
• What Is DSL?
• Local Loop Slide Show
• Occam Networks
• Occam White Papers
• Local Loop 101
• USDA Telecom Specs
• Telephone Exchanges
• Ericsson AXE
• All About DSL
• Broadband Properties
• Fiber to the Home
• How Cable Works
• How U-Verse Works
• U-Verse Experiences
• Qwest and U-Verse
• CHSDN Broadband
• CHSDN Faliure
• FCC - Truth
• Colorado OCC
• Colorado OCC Telephone
• Colorado CCR's
• PUC 4-CCR-723 Index