And you can have government intervention, but much of the US's woes are the result of that intervention. US municipalities created all these monopolies in exchange for the guarantee that they would serve everyone and not just the most profitable people, and unsurprisingly those monopolies don't have much incentive to keep up with the latest in technology. But that's precisely the bargain all those municipalities made! There is no free lunch here.

For example, if AT&T is convinced they are capable of providing a speedy 1 Gbps network, when Google announced they were going to Kansas City last year, AT&T could have decided to go to Austin and improve their service in the area.

However, this is not how it's playing out at all. Instead of choosing another densely populated area (only 2 cities in the US have this type of network, so there's plenty to choose from), they select (or signal) they will go only to where the competition is, and that is pretty absurd IMHO (not from a gaming theory perspective though).

Either way, Google's strategy in this case is flawless, and regardless of what other network providers do, it signals to the consumers that the technology is available and at reasonable costs. Therefore, it will start creating the push for network upgrades in cities where Google never intended to go in the first place at all, which is what this is all about. Having a fast and reliable network available to as many users as possible serves Google's interests (incidentally the consumers needs too), and that's what they are pushing for.

Regarding AT&T, they are signaling being willing to bring to the ground any business models relying on such upgrades, which as relevant as it could be to Comcast or Verizon, it's meaningless to Google as these investments are literally sunk money to defend their traditional business model.

In the same way they already defended in the past for other entrenched markets which could undermine their advertising business model, such as: Android (mobile market, avoiding iOS powerful position) or Chrome (internet browsers and default search provider settings).

You present a false dichotomy between libertarianism and plutocracy. The US is exceptionally bad at market regulation by developed-world standards, largely because of how politics in the US is funded. The obvious counter-example is South Korea, where the government are providing billions of usd in funding to ensure universal service of high-speed broadband. That's no free lunch either, but the costs of a digital divide can't be ignored.

Broadband is an increasingly vital infrastructure, arguably as important as roads or mains water. The national economy is increasingly dependent on the ubiquitous availability of fast internet connections. We should take seriously the social responsibility to provide and maintain that infrastructure.

Even if you have no interest in the internet, stuff like that has to hurt your house price.

We finally got 3MB DSL last year.

Internet connectivity is geographically bounded, and to be disruptive, you need to cover most areas. This is quite unlike other disruptive technology that e.g. Apple have produced, which isn't constrained by geography.

If Google Fiber never comes to your state/county/city, you'll have just as crappy and expensive service as you had before - the existing providers will try to squeeze out as much as possible - which they can continue to do until there's competition in that geographic area

We have a microwave link on the church tower to cover the village here. It really shouldn't be left up to the locals to manage their own network.

Most telcos will work on the basis of recouping this after X number of years, but can only do so because they have deep pockets. Putting fiber into west london is a no brainer, putting fiber into a village with ~300 residents , half of whom are over 65; not so much.

Actually, that's probably a no brainer as well. A village of 300 can't cost _that_ much, and improving network connectivity to a small town means that town becomes more attractive to the people who will be inheriting and buying the homes once the 65-year olds shuffle off this mortal coil.

Also, don't knock seniors. My 77-year old father blogs daily and my 71-year old mother spends a lot of her time playing with her new iPad mini. They live in a small town with new fiber.

The problem is that it's the opposite (at least in the USA) - state and national governments are lobbied by the telecom/cable industry to pass laws prohibiting local initiatives, so local governments have to give massive subsidies or concessions in order to get anything.

It's a poor replacement for fibre to the cabinet.

Their base-line internet service is roughly five times faster than my base-line internet service (from AT&T) in Chicago.

Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it.

To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies.

With this in place you might still buy your cable from Virgin and your mobile phone service from Orange, but Virgin and Orange would be renting space on the government's infrastructure to accomplish it.

Similar to the Network Rail model but less terrible.

People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

We've had nationalisation and it was a complete shambles. BT had no interest whatsoever in providing Broadband until Telewest came along. You couldn't even buy your own phone or answering machine until 1982 - before then, only a BT engineer was allowed to connect equipment to their network.

The straightforward solution is simply to offer a grant or tax credit to any company that provides the first high-speed connection to a house. Progressively increase the subsidy over a number of months or years to create a Dutch auction between BT, Virgin and whoever else throws their hat in the ring. This would progressively push up the LTV of customers relative to the cost of acquisition, creating the maximum number of connections at the minimum cost to the treasury.

In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever.

Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't.

True, I have no need for fast speeds; 20 Mbs is more than enough for me.

I live in a small town in a very rural part of the country and there's no hope of cable ever reaching us.. but we got Infinity 2 FTTC last year FWIW. I think the council threw grant money at BT though ;-)

The only tools at your disposal is some kind of subsidy or legislate them into eating the costs of laying down infrastructure in less profitable areas.