6 ms·

That is not the case for fiber. We -Norway, a country of 6 million people spread out- have multiple companies competing in all parts of the country. Fiber comp

That is not the case for fiber. We -Norway, a country of 6 million people spread out- have multiple companies competing in all parts of the country. Fiber companies compete in the larger cities, and even in the smaller towns we are starting to see more and more fiber competition. I have a hard time believing the U.S. offers less grounds for competition, that's a ridiculous proposal at best. When we can do it, you can. Your problem is rampant corruption. I wish I could, as a foreigner, ignore it, but what happens across the Atlantic has a tendency of spreading here.

wmf 13y ago
I wonder how those competing fiber ISPs recoup the costs of running fiber past buildings that aren't their customers. Is this "competition" government-subsidized by any chance?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
Most of your population lives along the coasts, and is also quite wealthy relative to much of our population. If you look at our densely populated east coast states, which are also quite wealthy, you'll see that in terms of average internet speeds, many would rank between #3 and #4 on the worldwide chart if they were countries: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q113 http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_i... (compare pages 14 with 17). They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast. This isn't really true. Verizon stopped its FiOS rollout several years ago, and was never interested in dense urban areas. Comcast only offers residential internet over coax, which is not a "fiber option." Population density is a red herring. The dense cities of the US have nothing like the connectivity of cities abroad.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Comcast has fiber services as does AT&T. Verizon doesn't avoid dense urban areas, but tends to avoid the municipal politics of inner cities. For example, there has been a big issue wiring up Baltimore for FIOS. The problem is that municipal governments make demands like "wiring up everyone" even though vast swaths of the city are too poor to afford fiber service. European cities tend not to have similarly dysfunctional municipal governments because European states don't use their cities as their dumping ground for their poor people.[1] A good example is Delaware. The state has the fastest average connection speeds in the U.S. Quite comparable to European countries like the Netherlands. However, there are very few options in the capital city of Wilmington.[2] The city proper is too poor to be a good market for fiber. But the wealthy suburbs just outside the city have great service options. The dense inner suburbs of American cities have quite competitive internet service, and if you look at the Akamai study, coastal U.S. states have comparable service speeds overall to European countries. [1] 10% of Oslo is below Norway's very generous poverty line ($25k). 25% of Baltimore is below the much less generous federal poverty line ($25k for a family of 4!). [2] Talks to get FIOS in Wilmington broke down because the government demanded "even coverage": http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-Anything-Of-Verizon-Or-You-Wont-Get-FiOS-107751 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-Anyt.... This is a city where half of kids live below the poverty line, and the median income is about 65% of the national average. Basically Verizon would have to spend a bunch of money running fiber to poor areas that could never afford it. It makes no sense. But that's the kind of ridiculous demands that leave urban markets in the U.S. without cable competition.
- hrkristian 13y ago
  No doubt you're right, fiber is universally affordable relative to our income. I'm paying $80, or ~3 hours of work for a minimum wage worker, for my fiber connection.

wmf 13y ago

I wonder how those competing fiber ISPs recoup the costs of running fiber past buildings that aren't their customers. Is this "competition" government-subsidized by any chance?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

Most of your population lives along the coasts, and is also quite wealthy relative to much of our population. If you look at our densely populated east coast states, which are also quite wealthy, you'll see that in terms of average internet speeds, many would rank between #3 and #4 on the worldwide chart if they were countries: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q113 http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_i... (compare pages 14 with 17). They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast.

dublinben 13y ago
>They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast. This isn't really true. Verizon stopped its FiOS rollout several years ago, and was never interested in dense urban areas. Comcast only offers residential internet over coax, which is not a "fiber option." Population density is a red herring. The dense cities of the US have nothing like the connectivity of cities abroad.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Comcast has fiber services as does AT&T. Verizon doesn't avoid dense urban areas, but tends to avoid the municipal politics of inner cities. For example, there has been a big issue wiring up Baltimore for FIOS. The problem is that municipal governments make demands like "wiring up everyone" even though vast swaths of the city are too poor to afford fiber service. European cities tend not to have similarly dysfunctional municipal governments because European states don't use their cities as their dumping ground for their poor people.[1] A good example is Delaware. The state has the fastest average connection speeds in the U.S. Quite comparable to European countries like the Netherlands. However, there are very few options in the capital city of Wilmington.[2] The city proper is too poor to be a good market for fiber. But the wealthy suburbs just outside the city have great service options. The dense inner suburbs of American cities have quite competitive internet service, and if you look at the Akamai study, coastal U.S. states have comparable service speeds overall to European countries. [1] 10% of Oslo is below Norway's very generous poverty line ($25k). 25% of Baltimore is below the much less generous federal poverty line ($25k for a family of 4!). [2] Talks to get FIOS in Wilmington broke down because the government demanded "even coverage": http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-Anything-Of-Verizon-Or-You-Wont-Get-FiOS-107751 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-Anyt.... This is a city where half of kids live below the poverty line, and the median income is about 65% of the national average. Basically Verizon would have to spend a bunch of money running fiber to poor areas that could never afford it. It makes no sense. But that's the kind of ridiculous demands that leave urban markets in the U.S. without cable competition.
hrkristian 13y ago
No doubt you're right, fiber is universally affordable relative to our income. I'm paying $80, or ~3 hours of work for a minimum wage worker, for my fiber connection.