4 ms·

> I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH Australia has done this on a national scale. There i

by nikcub 10y ago

> I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH Australia has done this on a national scale. There is now a government owned network which the existing providers were forced to sell their networks into. The ISPs then compete for services over the top of this network. The idea is that eventually the national network is also privatized but constrained into being a dumb pipe by regulation. This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband, but there are many benefits to accepting that internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly.

flukus 10y ago
> This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband Until the conservatives got into power it was going to advance broadband considerably. Now it's just a multibillion dollar gift to their political mates. 20 years from now when we still have slow internet I'm still going to be telling everyone it's the Liberal parties fault.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You see how that's a structural problem with having the government own and build the wires? It makes investment into the network a political decision. Some people don't want fiber installed because the ONT is too big and ugly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_ont_on_side_of_house_or_indoors https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_o.... People tried to hold up FTTN rollout in SF because the thought the fiber cabinets were ugly: https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4.... When you nationalize the broadband, you give these folks the power to vote on whether to use their tax dollars to invest in broadband. That might work in a country like Japan or South Korea where people see technological development as the path to prosperity. I suspect it won't work in a country like Australia or the US.

by nikcub 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

> This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband Until the conservatives got into power it was going to advance broadband considerably. Now it's just a multibillion dollar gift to their political mates. 20 years from now when we still have slow internet I'm still going to be telling everyone it's the Liberal parties fault.

rayiner 10y ago
You see how that's a structural problem with having the government own and build the wires? It makes investment into the network a political decision. Some people don't want fiber installed because the ONT is too big and ugly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_ont_on_side_of_house_or_indoors https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_o.... People tried to hold up FTTN rollout in SF because the thought the fiber cabinets were ugly: https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4.... When you nationalize the broadband, you give these folks the power to vote on whether to use their tax dollars to invest in broadband. That might work in a country like Japan or South Korea where people see technological development as the path to prosperity. I suspect it won't work in a country like Australia or the US.