Here in Australia we have a once-government-owned-carrier who has done their best to stifle competition since the market was de-regulated some 15 years ago. This sounds similar to the situation in the US. The incumbent competes with all their wholeasle customers, and only provide better services when the competition forces them to catch up. Still being the market share leader, they seem to get away with this. An example is their announcement to offer ADSL2 at speeds of 3Mb/s some time in 2006, where smaller ISPs who have deployed their owwn DSLAMs have been offering ADSL2 at 24Mb/s since last year.

Have a look at some of the models in Europe, where the network operator just operates the network, rather than trying to be the ISP also, or read my full opinion on this at http://yamasakiot.com/techtalk/dark-fibre-gets-put-to-use-by-service-providers/

It seems you have forgotten what really happened with broadband or with the FCC’s decisions…

Let’s start with broadband — by 2000, about 50 million households should have had 45mbps services to their homes — the Bell companies were able to change state laws to alternative regulatins and got billions per state…. which they then did not spend on the networks,.

in fact, they lied to regulators, since the services they claimed they were building weren’t able to be built at the cost models they submitted.

More ot the point, the FCC’s decisions in the 2000 range were a travesty. The Bells opened their networks in exchange for entering the long distance markets — something they had wanted to do since 1984…And after it was happening, the Bell, using the FCC simply killed off any competition on the PSTN — that’s public switched networks.

And the outcome of all of this was to allow the Bell companies to put AT&T and MCI out of business by blocking their ability to offer local service — on the PSTN.

And about competition — well, you also seem to forget that SBC and Verizon were able to get larger and buy their sibliings was because they promised to compete with each other — which they failed to do…

In short, they simply lied to the American public about their broadband deployments and competition…

And so, would I take a goverment controlled utility to an out of control phone monopoly?

America is 16th in the world today in broadband because there’s been no accountabilty or enforcement of their committments. And while Korea may be smaller than the US and goverment controlled, they have 100 Mbps services, we have DSL over the old copper wiring…. The broadband promises the Bells made was state-by-state and so, the bells didn’t fullfill obligations in NJ, MA, PA, CA, IL, OH, TX — and when you add up the states, it’s obvious that the coverage areas were much larger than most of the countries who are not dominating the broadband market…

And to read more:

Here’s our recent fraud complaint about the missing fiber networks
http://www.newnetworks.com/FTCcomplaintSBCVerizon.htm

And here’s just a few quotes of what was promised — and not delivered

Bell Atlantic, 1993-1996

* Bell Atlantic1993 Annual Report “First, we announced our intention to lead the country in the deployment of the information highway… We will spend $11 billion over the next five years to rapidly build full-service networks capable of providing these services within the Bell Atlantic Region… We expect Bell Atlantic’s enhanced network will be ready to serve 8.75 million homes by the end of the year 2000. By the end of 1998, we plan to wire the top 20 markets… These investments will help establish Bell Atlantic as a world leader…”
* Bell Atlantic Press Release, July 1996. “The company plans to add digital video broadcast capabilities to this “fiber-to-the-curb,” switched broadband network by the third quarter of 1997… Bell Atlantic plans to begin its network upgrade in Philadelphia and southeastern Pennsylvania later this year…. Ultimately, Bell Atlantic expects to serve most of the 12 million homes and small businesses across the mid-Atlantic region with switched broadband networks.”

And you trust these guys with our future?

Bruce Kushnick

Andrew Schmitt at Nyquist Capital blogs about more government regulation of broadband:We might have had more fiber to the home today, except for government regulation recently overturned. The regulation forced ILECs (The only ones with the cash to do it)

i) Monopolies
Monopolies are bad for business. Simple as that, no need to defend that business model. Monopolies are only good for the companies with the monopoly. More monopoly does not mean more fiber. More monopoly means more profits for the monopoly company. Verizon is not building out Fios because of new regulation. The regulation is only the icing on the cake. Verizon needs to upgrade its network no matter what. Competitive forces are the only ones strong enough to make ILECs invest.

ii) ILECs are the only ones with deep enough pockets
No so. Look to Europe for business models. Take a look at what the energy companies are doing.

iii) Negative view on the telecom market
The CEO says it himself best: “Investors have been so used to what they considered an industry that had limited or minimal competition,” Mr. Seidenberg said. “Now they get concerned about which companies win and which companies lose.”

That’s the real reason telecom stocks are down, not the fact that Verizon has seen the futures and chooses to invest now rather than die out later.

iv) Other countries simply do better at broadband
The regulatory environment in the US is simply abysmal. Excuses like population density are just that, excuses. EU population density is only about 50% higher than in the US and Canada’s population density is a tenth. Both the EU and Canada are still kicking butt and taking names.

v) Network neutrality
I don’t know if you misunderstood the network neutrality concept or not, but your analogy is way off. If major airlines were allowed to act like telcos on network neutrality then the airline would be allowed to charge different prices on the same seat on the same flight depending on your FINAL destination. “Going to France after spending the weekend in NY with your sister? That’ll be $500 extra, ’cause we don’t like them frogs at United.”

What’s my take on the matter of better broadband? You need a sound and solid regulatory framework that enables competition on all levels of the network plus community involvement for a better business model that ensures availability and reasonable prices. Missing any of the pieces increases barriers of entry, the cost of doing business and risks.