This article, along with the high speeds in Sweden (Stockholm specifically) got me thinking.
Their solution came about because they identified that (as happens here) roads were being dug up for one utility, then dug up again a while later for another utility. They came up with the idea of ensuring that various Utilities co-ordinated their maintenance, so that say, if the Electricity company needed to replace a main, then they would do that, and before filling in the hole, they would let the Water company come and do some maintenance.
Then, someone suggested that while all these roads were being dug up anyway, why not gradually build a hi-speed cable network?
Of course, ISPs objected and said it would force prices up. Had it been done in this country, they would probably be right.
However, the city of Stockholm had a solution. They mandated that the utility set up to run the cable network would provide services at cost.
However, that cost was kept down by the fact that they were given free access to any roadworks so they could lay cable (thus passing on the bulk of the cost of installation to other Utilities).
I wonder if such a system would be better than our current system in parts of this country? After all, in a commerical ISP, the primary concern is to make money. One of the ways they do this is to cut costs. In the case of BT and Virgin, one major cost is the installation and maintenance of the network. So, therefore, both companies have cut the maintenance and upgrades back to the minimum they can do, and still remain competitive.
It certainly seems to have worked in Stockholm..