It's my theory of why, anyway. In the U.K., BT (Openreach) has been pretty effective in leveraging the existing DSL infrastructure, pushing fiber closer to the home incrementally. While BT is required to let competitors use their wires, there is a framework in place for guaranteeing that BT gets a good return on these investments. There was never any such framework in place in the U.S. Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost?
> Without that, the basic market problem exists: why spend a bunch of money building infrastructure you have to lease to your competitors at cost?
Well, they don't get free access to the lines, they still pay rates, typically, from what I understand around 15-35% lower than the usual consumer prices per customer to the "main" provider on that line. If that's really not enough for them to continue maintaining and improving their infrastructure perhaps it would be an issue - but it certainly appears to have been sufficient here at least.
