
In France, for example, the regulator forced France Télécom to rent out its lines. One small start-up firm benefited from this opportunity and then installed technology that was much faster than any of its rivals'. It won so many customers that other operators had to follow suit. In Canada, too, the regulator mandated line-sharing, and provinces subsidised trunk lines from which smaller operators could lease capacity to provide service.The duopoly will settle for the U.S. being slow and expensive as long as they get to collect the rents.— Open up those highways, The Economist print edition, Jan 17th 2008
Here's how other countries do it:
What accounts for the differences among rich countries? Two or three years ago demography was often cited: small, densely populated countries were easier to wire up than big, sparsely inhabited ones. But the leaders in broadband usage include Canada, where a tiny population is spread over a vast area. The best explanation, in fact, is that broadband thrives on a mix of competition and active regulation, to ensure an open contest.Being stuck with a duopoly isn't good for the customers, and therefore it isn't even good for the duopoly. Only about 22% of people in the U.S. have broadband (and that's broadband defined as 256Kbps), so there's still huge room to grow. Real competition would bring profits to the ISPs and cheap and fast broadband to the population.A lack of competition-boosting oversight is one reason for the poor record of the United States (and indeed for New Zealand, another unexpected laggard). Most Americans have a choice of only two broadband providers, either a telecoms or a cable operator. This virtual duopoly suits both sorts of provider, and neither has raced to offer its customers faster access. In some American states, prices have risen; in most other countries they have dropped.
-jsq
Comments