What he's saying, I believe, is that the "various factors" that have gotten us to this point (behind Europe and Asia in overall broadband adoption and speed) were short-sighted and profit-driven decisions made by our government in favor of the telecoms and not in the best interests of the consumers.
In Europe and Asia, (correct me if I'm wrong) government took on the responsibility of promoting, even pushing broadband. It required a large capital outlay that private industry was not willing to risk. In the US, the telecoms argued that they could roll out broadband much more quickly and efficiently than if the feds stepped in, like when we electrified the country. They tooks billions in subsidies, pocketed it, and we the consumers are stuck with technological marvels that sip data through drink stirrers.
Ok, but wait. Any good references for the first paragraph (books, reviews, articles, researchers)? Is Wikipedia enough? What were the steps? Who were they made by? What makes those steps the primary factor in getting us to this point?
I'm confused about the end of your second paragraph. So the telecoms argue to the feds (which feds and when?) that they can do just fine getting broadband out by themselves? Then what happens. If they got what they wanted how does that get us to your last point. They argue they'll do it by themselves and then they get "billions in subsidies?" I thought by themselves meant sans subsidies. Plus if they could get the subsidies for not going at it alone why would they asking for going at it alone?
According to
this article in Businessweek (2004) the major reason the US is falling behind isn't subsidies. I was wrong. It's monopolies.
The argument is backed up by
this article from ArsTechnica (2007) which also mentions the lack of competition.
I googled "us behind broadband" to find these articles.
Sorry I was wrong about the subsidies, but I still claim I was right about the greed.
Interesting retraction.
I think you did the wrong search, though. The original post by heffeque, which I was responding to, was about mobile phone standards. And not about broadband. I guess your response to mine was where the topic of broadband was introduced. I didn't notice until your last post.
For what it's worth to you, I see nothing in your other post about greed. Did I miss something?
Regardless of the market (mobile data or broadband) I'm not sure that I'm with you. It seems like since you didn't find subsidies as being the culprit for why the US has lagged you're inclined substitute in lack of competition.
For broadband, the Businessweek article does make the claim that policy (or a lack of it) has contributed to what it considers a significant and negative disparity for the US in broadband penetration and speed. It makes this claim rather weakly, but anyway.
With respect to competition, the article suggests that the US adopt policies to encourage it. It points to Korea and Japan as examples where such policies have been successful.
The Ars Technica article casts doubt on the data that it focuses on. Interestingly the UK seems to be significantly behind the US if one believes their data on broadband speed. It also makes a couple of policy recommendations. Notice that it does not, especially in any sort of comprehensive way, suggest that subsidies or lack of competition is the primary or singular factor in the state of the US broadband or mobile phone markets.
I sort of like
this post on differences between European and American mobile phone use.
Although it is somewhat anecdotal, it considers a diversity of factors that have gotten these markets to where they're at. According to his post many of the differences are cultural and historical. He makes no mention of policy and or subsidy and or monopoly has having a role, which isn't to say that either of those aren't significant factors. As you know, there may be many other articles on the matter that suggest as much.
He also provides a counterexample to the idea that differences in density can account for the differences in coverage between US and Europe:
The usual American excuse for its poor coverage is that US population densities are low. That doesn't hold up to close examination – Norway has about 15 people per square kilometer, the same density as Arizona, which is not exactly crowded. The US overall has about 33, more than double Norway's density. I think Europe is just more dedicated to universal mobile coverage.
I'm not suggesting that a single counterexample settles the density explanation. Density may have a role and it would seem like a more thorough analysis of the differences in coverage would include density among other factors.
!
