Private enterprise had their chance, decades even. Fool us once.
Telecommunications investment per capita is higher in the US than all other OECD countries, and by a lot[1]. The gap in telecom investment between the US and the EU is similar[2].
The robust and enduring gap in American telecommunication investment really paid off as COVID began to take over the world. American internet was the most well positioned to withstand the lockdown-induced surge in internet load. Meanwhile, internet speeds in Italy and many other European nations were slowed down to less than half what’s standard in the US, partially due to older infrastructure[3]. In Europe, Netflix actually reduced its traffic there by 25 percent and YouTube promised to limit quality in order to to free up bandwidth for other services. None of this was necessary in the US.
The fixed broadband speed in the US is higher than that of Portugal, Poland, Germany, Belgium, South Korea (!!), Austria, and Italy [4].
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVHQddtUcAElcjq?format=jpg&name=...
[2] https://www.orange.com/fr/content/download/47277/1372866/ver...
[3] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/25/21188391/internet-surge...
The market will not solve access issues, regional monopolies by ISPs, or similar matters without intense regulation. Even then they will use tax subsidies to fight those regulations tooth and nail.
I'm running 100/10 on a dsl type line right now because it's my only other option than Xfinity and it is literally as fast as I can get outside of Xfinity as they own the infrastructure here for anything better. At least I don't have a data cap and can skate by at these speeds, though my upload hurts quite often.
While anecdotes are important, the data just doesn't corroborate the notion that American broadband internet is worse, on average, than that of its peer countries. You're right that the experience of some individuals does not match up to the aggregate statistics, but you can't draw broad conclusions from those data points.
The aggregate data captures the experiences of your friends, just like the aggregate data for other nations captures adverse experiences of their citizens. And what the data does say is 1) investment in broadband infrastructure is higher in the US (per capita) than most other peer nations, and 2) average broadband speed in the US is higher than most other peer nations. That's not really a matter of opinion, it's strictly an observation.
Look at the right side table — we are talking about fixed broadband infrastructure (fiber), not Mobile.
I’m genuinely curious: what regulations are hampering investment? Cause it’s not net neutrality (ISPs have said to their investors that it doesn’t)
Seriously, the governments have taken almost a hands off approach to the internet, and it’s now evident that it’s not working.
State-and-local permitting is one huge morass. When I had fiber installed to my house, Comcast had to get permits to hang fiber on a utility poll. Then there were different permits for diverting traffic temporarily while hanging the fiber. Then there were other permits for trenching. The whole process took months. And there is a skilled worker there that has to shepard the process through the bureaucracy.
Other regulations prevent offering television service (a key revenue source) without commitments to build a certain footprint. That means you can't start an ISP with a "minimal viable product" and grow from there. You have to be willing to commit huge amounts of money up front before you see a cent of revenue.
It's very illustrative to look at the deals Google Fiber struck with municipalities, because that shows you where are the real pressure points. Two features appeared in almost every accepted proposal for a Fiber city: (1) one-shot, fast-track permitting; and (2) no build-out requirements.
That's nice. It's apparent that you live in or near a large metropolotian area. But we're talking about places like Vermont, Upstate NY, and rural Ohio that currently have DSL, or 3G, as their only option.
>That's not only good new infrastructure but also significantly cheaper than the old cable stuff.
Not sure where you get your figures from, but fiber optic is more expensive per foot than copper. In fact, the FTTH installs use some of the most expensive fiber to limit potential issues. On top of that, rural areas are especially difficult because the population density just might mean miles between homes. So, this isn't as much about regulation as it is for-profit companies not willing to take a loss to serve the few.
One datapoint without even stating where you are is meaningless. In general, urban and well off suburban areas have enough resources and density for several competing providers that will actually maintain infrastructure. Meanwhile "competition" in rural areas consists of aging coax versus aging copper. We've had over a decade of private companies promising to build out modern infrastructure if given public money, with few results. Only when rural areas build out municipal fiber do they get reliable gigabit with no customer service hassle.
They advertise a similar deal in my city. It isn't actually available anywhere except for a tiny patch of rich-people-land of course.
I have been considering downgrading as one third the speed is around half the price I think. :/
Just highlighting this because while it functions as an unquestioned prior for a lot of us in the tech community, I think it conflates a means with an end. Competition is generally preferable because it builds in the enforcement of feedback between the preferences of consumers and capacities of producers of a good. Where that feedback is tight, it promotes the welfare of both. Common welfare is the end, competition is the means.
Have you ever lived in a neighborhood with ongoing FTTH, or even FTTC, installation? I assure you that there is certainly a problem with having that done multiple times. That's just the making-lives-shitty part and doesn't even get to capital costs, which ISPs just straight-up won't spend; go look at the ongoing embarrassment of "hey Verizon, when's FiOS coming to X?". (The answer, dear reader, is "never".)
Public fiber is better, but there should be, as with most necessary-for-modern-life services, a public option that puts a ceiling on what a private company can charge for service. If they can extract efficiencies to be cheaper, sure, great.
I was around when AT&T ran the fiber in my old neighborhood. One day, they put pulleys on the poles. Another day, they pulled the fiber over the pulleys. The worst part was waiting for service to become available even though the neighborhood equipment was installed.
The couple of days with lots of trucks in the neighborhood was somewhat disruptive, but not that much more than trash day with a couple garbage trucks driving slowly through the neighborhood.
That still doesn't make it likely to get competition this way. AT&T seemingly only installed fiber because Google had announced they were going to, but Google never actually did, because it was too expensive (capital cost + regulatory requirements + pole access)
If you're in an area where conditions are frequently bringing down poles or wires, it can make sense, but a lot of places want underground utilities for cosmetic reasons --- it's a lot of expense to give you a less flexible system.
https://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/cs41_1.aspx
https://staticshare.america.gov/uploads/2016/04/6.-GCI-Dig-O...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dig-once-rule-re...
I’m of the opinion that if the free market isn’t solving the problem, then the government needs to step in. It’s been repeatedly shown that, even after being given subsidies, ISPs will not spend it on upgrading their networks. Instead, they spend it on raising the salaries of executives and stock buybacks.
Maybe if a competitor were to come in and offer symmetrical gigabit fiber to the home, the ISPs would improve?
Google Fiber was an attempt at that. But even with the weight of Google behind it, starting a new ISP proved too difficult, and they failed.
The barrier to entry is too high and it’s no longer a free market. That’s when the government should step in whether it’s regulation or providing a government run ISP.
Separating anything that can operate like a monopoly is also the role of government, at least in terms of protecting markets and competition, and if the market then demonstrates it will opt for profit over availability then the service needs to be seize and operated or at least very highly regulated by the government just like water, power, and other utilities. There are many examples of this working when expansion or availability was not profitable and therefore not an option for a private company.
Basically, if it operates like a utility in requires high regulation to insure access and failing that requires government management and ownership to operate effectively. We tried giving billions to ISPs and it didn't go to expanding service. The market wants profit, not equal access.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywkn4b/study-throwing-tax...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/frontiers-bankruptcy-r...
https://www.broadbandtechreport.com/fiber/ftth/article/16446...
http://www.qlife.net/sites/default/files/imported/broadbandr...
This is neoliberal ideology. It's possible to build good public sector services as shown by the rest of the world.
It is practically impossible to run multiple competing water and sewer pipes or other utilies. But there is no such problem with fiber. Or there could be public passive fiber operated by multiple competing ISPs.
Proper role of government is to actively encourage competition, not destroy market by subsidised public service. But it seems that US government instead actively discourage competition, which leads to bad commercial services, which leads to public preference for monopolistic government service, with all its problems well known from Europe past.