Why doesn't the US federal govt deploy nationwide fiber optic bandwidth as a telecommunication public utility?

Question

Why doesn't the US federal govt deploy nationwide fiber optic bandwidth as a telecommunication public utility?

Answer 1

I am not American but I can imagen that its because the US federal government already has a telecommunication public utility and it would cost money to upgrade it nationwide.

Answer 2

that would be best left to private business as it would cost the tax payers lots of money. Besides, anything private businesses can do will be done better, capitalism works well when you give it it's head.  

Answer 3

Capitalism is like Christianity. It is a beautiful idea in theory but the devil is in the details. In the telecom business, as with any big business, when an institution gains a competitive advantage in the marketplace they seek to maintain their monopoly by the cheapest and most efficient means possible. They send lobbyists to Washington with boatloads of cash to bribe politicians. They get legislation passed to outlaw the competition and inoculate themselves from the vagaries of the free market. There is an incestuous marriage between big telecoms and the federal government. The American public is the abused child of this unholy matrimony.  

Answer 4

Because it is ridiculously expensive.  The United States has some of the oldest telecommunications infrastructure in the world.  

One of the most frequent arguments made for the lack of fibre optic lines in the United States is the size of the nation.

This is ludicrous, however. Look at Russia.  Russia has a landmass even larger than the United States, yet private, residential areas have FTTH available to them for relatively low cost.

The truth is, as I suggested, that the U.S. would have to scrap much of it's existing telecommunications infrastructure to accomplish this. Many insist that nations such as Japan and South Korea have high fibre availability because they were able to develop their telecommunications infrastructure in a methodical way due to the fact that it was constructed more recently than in the U.S.  This is probably very close to the truth.  If you look at cities like New York City, the lines underground date back from the turn of the century (circa 1900).  It would be the most massive and expensive construction project the city has seen in years to tear all of this up and lay out fibre.  

As to why the federal government does not institute fibre as a public telecommunications utility, that's simple.  Americans are still scared stiff of Communists.  If the federal government effectively OWNED the means of telecommunications, this would be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.  Furthermore, telecommunications is one of the most competitive businesses in the United States today.  If we revisit the case of New York City, it has been a major source of conflict in the last ~15 years over who owns the cable underground.  Up until recently, it has been clear that the entity that lays the copper, owns it.  This has allowed a certain company that I shall not mention by name to run a monopoly in the city for over a decade.  It was only recently that negotiations between this particular telecom and certain of it's competitors (including a certain nationwide telecom with a fibre network) have allowed for other telecoms to have leased access to the cable underground.  This is an ongoing issue, however, not only in New York City, but in cities all around the country.

Note that I realize this may some kind of homework question for you.

EDIT: Also note that in recent years, Cisco systems has been in compliance with United States government internet wiretapping practices. Americans are already outraged by this invasion of privacy, and would not stand for government ownership of the means of telecommunications.

Answer 5

You should ask the US President .. seems they have better use of the federal money in making military hardware

talking about connectivity .. the other alternative is Wi_Max .. check it out

Answer 6

I have no answer except speculation. A: It'd be extremely expensive. but even more likely, I think, is a matter of political philosphy. Republicans esp. but Americans in general (IMO)  tend to think the gov't should do anything that private companies could make a buck at.

It think it's a terrific idea and would benefit your country. I would like to see Canada do it to but we have a fedearl gov't with a similar philosophy here.