3 ms·

A lot of it is down to those countries being early adopters of telecom infrastructure. It meant when a lot of other countries were wiring up internet for the fi

A lot of it is down to those countries being early adopters of telecom infrastructure. It meant when a lot of other countries were wiring up internet for the first time, they weren’t faced with the prospect of having to piggyback existing and aged infrastructure. eg in some cases they could leapfrog copper almost entirely and jump straight to fibre.

moistly 5y ago
In Canada it is down to our telecom oligopoly, which our government protects by (a) refusing foreign competition and (b) installing industry heads to run the consumer protection regulator, i.e. allowing the oligopoly to capture the regulatory body. In actual fact, our telcos were heavily subsidized during their formative years, granting them a monopoly, rights of way, and helping to pay for their infrastructure. In return for a guaranteed profit margin, we had extreme control over their pricing structure and guarantees of service quality and coverage. Then we allowed them to be privatized and deregulated, in exchange for which we get fucked. Which is, as far as I’ve ever been able to tell, the inevitable outcome of converting public services to private.
- bruce511 5y ago
  Govt created monopolies are bad whether they are public or private. Private is worse because money is removed as profit, not just reinvested. Privatisation is good if competition is fostered at the same time. For example by opening existing physical infrastructure to multiple service providers. Where I live we had (historically) one fixed lined govt provider. When mobile arrived we got 3 private providers. With fibre we got multiple hardware installers (ie multiple companies digging fibre) and then dozens of ISPs running on that. So far, so good.
geoduck14 5y ago
>in some cases they could leapfrog copper almost entirely and jump straight to fibre. I visited Nepal several years back. They were going straight to wireless. All of the villages in the mountains had a solar panel on their roof that they used to charge their cellphones and there was a cell tower on the ridges. It was surreal to see villagers use Facebook but have no road access to the main city.
- vmurthy 5y ago
  "Moving bits, not atoms" :-). Have you had a look at India's progress in FinTech / Telecom ?
justsomehnguy 5y ago
This one and the plain difference in the size. It is easier to upgrade everything in some Blatic states than in some US cities.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Yeam, but there is also masive difference in wealth. And then you can't use size as enxcuse in a comparison with India
Sakos 5y ago
Politicians in "old world" countries explicitly decided to stick to existing copper infrastructure instead of rolling out something better. These countries like to pretend corruption isn't an issue for them, but then you have asinine decisions like this.

moistly 5y ago

In Canada it is down to our telecom oligopoly, which our government protects by (a) refusing foreign competition and (b) installing industry heads to run the consumer protection regulator, i.e. allowing the oligopoly to capture the regulatory body. In actual fact, our telcos were heavily subsidized during their formative years, granting them a monopoly, rights of way, and helping to pay for their infrastructure. In return for a guaranteed profit margin, we had extreme control over their pricing structure and guarantees of service quality and coverage. Then we allowed them to be privatized and deregulated, in exchange for which we get fucked. Which is, as far as I’ve ever been able to tell, the inevitable outcome of converting public services to private.

bruce511 5y ago
Govt created monopolies are bad whether they are public or private. Private is worse because money is removed as profit, not just reinvested. Privatisation is good if competition is fostered at the same time. For example by opening existing physical infrastructure to multiple service providers. Where I live we had (historically) one fixed lined govt provider. When mobile arrived we got 3 private providers. With fibre we got multiple hardware installers (ie multiple companies digging fibre) and then dozens of ISPs running on that. So far, so good.

geoduck14 5y ago

>in some cases they could leapfrog copper almost entirely and jump straight to fibre. I visited Nepal several years back. They were going straight to wireless. All of the villages in the mountains had a solar panel on their roof that they used to charge their cellphones and there was a cell tower on the ridges. It was surreal to see villagers use Facebook but have no road access to the main city.

vmurthy 5y ago
"Moving bits, not atoms" :-). Have you had a look at India's progress in FinTech / Telecom ?

justsomehnguy 5y ago

This one and the plain difference in the size. It is easier to upgrade everything in some Blatic states than in some US cities.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Yeam, but there is also masive difference in wealth. And then you can't use size as enxcuse in a comparison with India

Sakos 5y ago

Politicians in "old world" countries explicitly decided to stick to existing copper infrastructure instead of rolling out something better. These countries like to pretend corruption isn't an issue for them, but then you have asinine decisions like this.