> One of the most disruptive ideas the EU is working on (among alternatives) is detaching the network utilizes operators.
Since i was quite young it blew my mind that we didn't have one universal network which every network utilises. It is clearly more efficient, removes redundancy, spreads costs.
It's not that crystal clear. I live in France now, where the last mile cables are detached from operators. As the cable to the place I live in is quite bad, no operator will ever do a thing about it. In Poland, it's still an anarchy... So when I receive bad service, I go to the competition and they put their own cable to my place. They have to compete on that part of quality of service, not just say "it's just bad around here, it's not our problem".
Networks can never work with capitalism, as there's more benefit to extending an existing network than creating multiple competing networks. Roads, Internet, wired phones. Thus the network might as well be owned and run by the government, and access to it sold to the public/companies.
I'm quite ignorant of the specifics of European and American telecom ecosystems. But I clearly remember the time when the network was owned and run solely by the Indian government. It was horrible. In the 80s, when we applied for a telephone line, we typically had to wait for about three years for it to be installed. To call someone in a different city, we'd have to place a "trunk call": call an operator, and request a line. The operator would call back when the line became available, typically an hour later. With private industry, even those who live each week hand-to-mouth can afford to carry around cell phones.
> Thus the network might as well be owned and run by the government...
Given a choice, I'd rather not live in such an ecosystem. Again.
Since i was quite young it blew my mind that we didn't have one universal network which every network utilises. It is clearly more efficient, removes redundancy, spreads costs.