{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03316749585406302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003316749585406302, 'mean_word_length': 5.386243386243386, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fiber in the loop

The close of the 1980s saw many trials and applications of fiber in the loop or FITL. Most delivered traditional telephony (i.e., narrowband) services to the home, but a few provided both narrowband and entertainment video (i.e., broadband) services. During that time, the local-exchange carriers (LECs) also formulated their objectives and strategies for deploying FITL. As they gained a better understanding of the marketplace and the political realities of delivering video services, the LECs adopted an FITL-deployment strategy based on strict cost-effectiveness for the delivery of traditional telephone services. However, any fiber-optic access architecture they adopt has to support broadband services in the future. To address the cost and service challenges of FITL, the LECs and vendors must continually evaluate many alternative access architectures to identify potential advantages that can help fiber access achieve cost parity with copper access. Total system costs must be considered including electrical and optical components, powering system, fiber and cable components, and life-cycle costs (i.e., administration, maintenance, assignment, and provisioning operations).