Pemalite said:
Zkuq said:
It doesn't seem as good in the US though, unless this Wikipedia article about telecom companies and this Wikipedia article about broadband providers are missing something essential. It seems there's a relatively limited amount of nation-wide service providers, and I doubt local service providers can really make much of a mark in the big picture unless the situation is absolutely horrible. Of course in your case the situation sounds good, this thread seems to be more about the US.
|
Well. The main difference in the USA is that your telecom companies own the infrastructure... So they can lock out competitors almost geographically.
In Australia we have one company who owns all the infrastructure, aka. NBN Co... And all internet providers are given equal treatment for access to that network. NBN Co is also not allowed to sell internet connections directly to consumers, thus preventing them from becoming a monopoly.
Of course with a monopoly on the infrastructure you would assume infrastructure access costs would be higher, but NBN Co still has to compete with mobile carriers. (Namely Telstra and Optus) who also retail their mobile networks to all other providers, so that keeps them in check.
Basically in the USA's attempt to create and stimulate competition in telecommunications, you have done the complete reverse which ultimately has led you to this point.
|
I don't have much to add here. The only thing I'd like to add is that I'm not American, so none of this is (directly) my problem (at least yet). I'm Finnish, and the situation here is relatively good. We have a very limited amount of ISPs, but things seem to be working out fairly well (which I'm actually somewhat surprised about).
