Reality, meaning results, make their own policies and decisions.  I'm always happy to let them have their say.

It's hard to see any will for nationalizing the network infrastructure. I'd have to be convinced it was a good idea, too. 

I think they do have a lot in common, and I've done work in Oz over the years and watched their NBN proposal develop pretty much from the first.  I think it raises some questions as well as raising some prospects, and it's way too early in their experiment for me to be able to call the ball on the outcome.  The most profound issue is whether "competition" above the physical layer is meaningful.  For example the US CLEC process hasn't moved the ball much in terms of services or pricing, and many argue that it discouraged plant upgrades because it made the investment subject to wholesaling.  Would a government-run physical layer spawn real innovation above, or would it just spawn minimal resale of what's below?  If the latter, then the costs don't change and you'd be better off nationalizing everything.

Tom

This relates to a net neutrality proposal that looks appealing: Separate the physical network from services on top of it. The physical network becomes a regulated monopoly, but the services on top of it are free to compete. This sidesteps the competitive issues that other net neutrality proposals are designed to protect, without creating a rigid and complicated regulatory infrastructure.

Yes, I know the two proposals are very different, but they seem to have that much in common.

I hope it works out for them too; I'm of the view that we need to rethink global telecom policy in light of things like mobile broadband and the cloud.  The challenge is that a lot of market damage can be done in 36 months!  I wonder if reasoned debate might be necessary to create an optimum outcome for Europe and the US.

Tom

It is interesting to think about the old days of monopolized telecommunications and discover there were some pros! We see some replication of that in the US with government rulings about rural access to communications infrastructure -- and studies that indicate lack of access to the Internet is one reason that poorer children perform less well on standardized tests. I'd argue that it's scarcely the biggest factor, but every bit of assistance has to help. 

Some of these programs, like the Australian example you cite, can take a lot of time to demonstrate results. It'll be interesting to see 12, 24, and 36 months from now what has happened--hopefully a lot of good things!

Absolutely, Alison!  I think I mentioned the Australia experience in my blog here.  They decided to create what's essentially a national infrastructure for wireline by buying out and running (via a not-for-profit) the low-level network.  That was a multi-year political marathon and it involved only one country!  It's also not yet clear whether it worked, meaning that it achieved anything useful.

I look back to the old days of regulated telco monopolies and I really wonder if we'd have been better off now had we just left them in place and regulated to secure the kind of infrastructure investment and service changes we wanted.

Tom

Lots of devils in lots of details in this case, I'd imagine, Tom! Think of the bidding process, the political shenanigans, the lobbying and so forth that would go on; not that it's a reason to stop doing this, of course! I can imagine the Chunnel created its own (smaller) nightmares, too! I'd guess there'd be one large contractor who worked with multiple large subcontractors, who in turn partnered with many smaller firms across the continent.

I think there's value in having shared or even government-supported infrastructure for wireline and wireless, but the devil is always in the details.  Competitive overbuild is a cost but complacency underbuild is the risk!

Tom

It sounds promising and the European Union has certainly tackled plenty of other complex challenges, many quite well. It would be great news for poorer European nations, that's for sure.