3 ms·
Great idea, except for the fact that this didn't work at all. The 1996 Act encouraged lots of outside investment in telco competition, but all of that is gone n
by jessaustin 7y ago
Great idea, except for the fact that this didn't work at all. The 1996 Act encouraged lots of outside investment in telco competition, but all of that is gone now. Unlike in more civilized parts of the world [0], USA regulators have not fostered competition in telecom. That's why we have 2.5 national telcos.
[0] https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadban...
- JumpCrisscross 7y agoI’m not sure we can conclude Europe’s broadband policy is better than America’s. The former optimised for consumers today over investment tomorrow. That’s hamstrung an array of projects across the Continent.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoCan you give more details? I consistently like telco better in Europe... Not that I don't gripe about it... but it is more competitive.
- Iv 7y agoHaving followed the question in France pretty closely, most of the progress in both broadband and mobile telephony came from mainly one slightly less greedy ant later comer: Free Telecom. Before that, it was basically 3 operators with several trials for illegal agreements on prices. Once Free was granted a license, France entered the 21st century and prices fell. Unlimited plans starting appearing. The difference in terms of policy is not huge: the only difference is a slight difference in terms of corruption and outrage. The process in France was clearly corrupt, but a few institutions still do their job and users made it a political issue. Getting that mobile license was a short call and it changed everything.
- agumonkey 7y agoIt seems usa telco is many Time worse than the worst period in France. Not that i don't appreciate free policies.