So I was watching the following video
http://www.viddler.com/simple/98b93558/
Some where around the 18 minute mark they talk about the differences between europe and united states telecom, and how the british solved the problem of monopolistic telecommunications, by forcing the companies to allow isp's to use their wires. British Telecom was the company that was forced to do so.
I'm wondering what is wrong with our telecoms that have been impeding our progress, or at least not nearly as fast as theirs. Clearly Engadget has a pro government intervention stance. Are there any good studies on the subject?
The same British Telecom that was a state firm until 1991. BT is still a monopoly. 12 providers in UK, this guy says? When I was at my cousin's house in London 2 years ago there was one provider of internet services and phone: BT. The whole time I was there he complained about not having any service for a week, how they kept promising to fix it and didn't. I live a bedroom town of 2000 in potato country in Ontario and get better service than that... and my ISP was about the lowest rated in North America when I checked, especially in customer service. I remember hearing about the fastest backbones in the world being established in the U.S. some years ago. That may have changed very recently if a new one was built somewhere else; but, it certainly does not warrant their ridiculous portayal.
Clearly Engadget has a pro government intervention stance.
You have to be full to the brim of sleeze to say things like what they do.
So there are regulators that do a better job of overseeing the local communications monopolies than the Federal-State combination in the USA. That is not suprising. What would be suprising would be that the USA would completely deregulate communications and let these companies fight it out for market share. Then the US Consumers would benefit the most.