First of all, apologies that your comment took so long to appear. Unfortunately it was originally stuck somewhere I couldn't see it. Secondly, thanks for leaving it.

Now, to respond:
- first, I'm not an “American analyst” – I do live in the US, but I'm a Brit. So I'm familiar both with the UK and with the rest of Europe. My views reflect my years as a European-based analyst as well as those I've now spent in the US.
- my analysis here is focused on the fact that there are two very different models, both of which have their good points. There are certainly shortcomings with the US system and the European system. I think the US system has done a better job delivering the next generation of fast broadband so far, and the European system is still struggling with that issue. But that doesn't mean the US has universal basic broadband, let alone fast broadband, as you point out.
- I make no attempt to explain why broadband coverage isn't universal in either place – in most European countries there are also substantial rural areas where there is no coverage, for the same reasons – lack of incentive, lack of a broadband USO requirement, and long loop lengths making DSL a bad option.
- the US model was originally designed to move people from regulation-based access to their own networks, but it failed to do that (or providers failed to move through those options before they ran out of money and the regulatory playing field changed). The timing of the 1996 Act, the spread of DSL, and the dotcom crash were phenomenally bad in this respect.

Thanks again for your comments. I always welcome constructive engagement on the topics I post on.

Jan

Your assumptions about the differences in models for instance fail to explain why many people in the United States have only 1 or no broadband supplier to choose from. It also fails to explain why no new entrants have stepped into the market and most large providers of earlier days have now all but left the market.