> Fiber is only reasonably inexpensive in dense urban areas. In dense urban areas it is expensive to retrofit a network. You have to maintain the existing whi

> Fiber is only reasonably inexpensive in dense urban areas. In dense urban areas it is expensive to retrofit a network. You have to maintain the existing while you run the new, won't have a lot of space, any digging or new poles is expensive as there is a lot of infrastructure in your way, salaries are much higher, etc. Europe is a good example of this. DSL remained in most areas because dense urban areas are expensive to convert. In less dense (sub-urban) areas, fiber has much lower ongoing maintenance costs versus copper, labor costs are lower, it's less prohibitive/cumbersome when you need or prefer to dig, and pole attachment is cheaper/easier. In very rural areas, customers are so sparse that it's a money loser whatever you do. Installation of the copper phone lines was paid for by government programs, and the USF fees continue to subsidize their continued operation. While fiber has lower operating/maintenance costs than copper, the payoff period for the conversion is many decades, so decidedly uneconomical. When FIOS first came out, it was unsurprisingly the sub-urban areas which were the first to be converted. They are the sweet-spot for most profitable FIOS conversion. Urban areas remain expensive to convert, but internet service has become more profitable over the years, and losing your customers to a competitor which did the investment is bad all-around, so conversion happens regardless of expense. Most telling fact is Verizon opting to get out of wired service entirely. It's a lower margin business than most, requiring high up-front investment with long/slow payback... at least in areas where there is any competition.