[Discuss] Competition of broadband

[Tom Metro]

The alternate approach taken by European governments was mentioned
earlier in this thread. I highly recommend watching this video on the topic:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

(A variation of it ran on PBS earlier this year.)

It seems to show a successful model for creating inexpensive (at least
an order of magnitude cheaper than ours), faster, ubiquitous broadband.

What's less clear is whether this model could successfully be
extrapolated from suburban-density areas to rural areas. (But the video
does cover rural deployments.)


Ben Eisenbraun wrote:
> The only reason network providers build network to unprofitable
> areas, i.e. low-density, rural areas, is because regulations force
> them to.

True. The problem with the purely commercial provider model is that the
company investing in the infrastructure may not see a payback on running
a wire to a distant rural customer for hundreds of years, because the
only return is the $30 or whatever monthly fee they are getting.

If you instead view the problem from the perspective of the community
(town government), you now have much greater opportunity for return on
investment. A well wired town attracts more people, people who can
telecommute and get higher paying jobs, people who spend money at local
businesses, and those conditions also attract employers to the area
(premium property tax revenues).

So the answer seems to be some combination of public-private infrastructure.

Some towns in the US have attempted to build their own fiber plants only
to be thwarted by telecom lobbyists getting state laws passed
prohibiting anyone but the telecoms from doing such a thing.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/