4 ms·

It still surprises me that US government hasn't gone the same way as Canada and the UK and opened the lines up to competition. By forcing ISPs to offer up their

It still surprises me that US government hasn't gone the same way as Canada and the UK and opened the lines up to competition. By forcing ISPs to offer up their "last mile" lines to competitors at reasonable prices, I've seen prices and plans get a lot better where I live over the last few years.

rayiner 12y ago
I don't know about Canada, but the UK could do it because those lines were originally owned by a government corporation. The U.S. did do something similar for DSL, but that was a disaster because it removed any incentive phone companies had to invest in their DSL infrastructure.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Is this why grandparent comment of yours was complaining about poor DSL speed?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    It's my theory of why, anyway. In the U.K., BT (Openreach) has been pretty effective in leveraging the existing DSL infrastructure, pushing fiber closer to the home incrementally. While BT is required to let competitors use their wires, there is a framework in place for guaranteeing that BT gets a good return on these investments. There was never any such framework in place in the U.S. Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost?
    - ultramancool 12y ago
      > Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost? Well, they don't get free access to the lines, they still pay rates, typically, from what I understand around 15-35% lower than the usual consumer prices per customer to the "main" provider on that line. If that's really not enough for them to continue maintaining and improving their infrastructure perhaps it would be an issue - but it certainly appears to have been sufficient here at least.
T-hawk 12y ago
Regulatory capture. Interests concerned with protecting ISPs' monopolistic profits have more government influence than interests concerned with the good of the consumer.
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's not like they don't have regulatory agencies in the UK or Canada. It's a pretty weak, handwaving argument to just assert that their agencies are less prone to capture.

rayiner 12y ago

I don't know about Canada, but the UK could do it because those lines were originally owned by a government corporation. The U.S. did do something similar for DSL, but that was a disaster because it removed any incentive phone companies had to invest in their DSL infrastructure.

danielweber 12y ago
Is this why grandparent comment of yours was complaining about poor DSL speed?
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's my theory of why, anyway. In the U.K., BT (Openreach) has been pretty effective in leveraging the existing DSL infrastructure, pushing fiber closer to the home incrementally. While BT is required to let competitors use their wires, there is a framework in place for guaranteeing that BT gets a good return on these investments. There was never any such framework in place in the U.S. Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost?
  - ultramancool 12y ago
    > Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost? Well, they don't get free access to the lines, they still pay rates, typically, from what I understand around 15-35% lower than the usual consumer prices per customer to the "main" provider on that line. If that's really not enough for them to continue maintaining and improving their infrastructure perhaps it would be an issue - but it certainly appears to have been sufficient here at least.

T-hawk 12y ago

Regulatory capture. Interests concerned with protecting ISPs' monopolistic profits have more government influence than interests concerned with the good of the consumer.

rayiner 12y ago
It's not like they don't have regulatory agencies in the UK or Canada. It's a pretty weak, handwaving argument to just assert that their agencies are less prone to capture.