I picked up on exaclty the same quote, but i think your summary is a little harsh. You're right about how some decision-makers view short term though.
However, the UK has a lot of infrastructure that was innovative and made commercial sense at the time, but is rather dated now - 7' wide canals, for instance. So we get infrastructure relatively early in the lifecycle (in global terms), and suffer as others only install something a little newer, but later. We get a first-mover advantage, but not necessarily a long-term advantage.
To the companies that made the initial gamble/investment, there is of course a lot to be said for making the most of the existing investment. Quite naturally.
The problem is that we have a combination -
a) a national, widespread, fairly reasonable but old-ish, copper network that can be enticed to give reasonable-ish bandwidth at relatively cheap prices.
b) very cheap broadband packages, where charge isn't related to speed
c) a subscriber base that isn't willing to pay higher prices for faster speeds
d) Investors that won't take a long enough view
In that environment, there isn't a ready mass-market for a whole new access network that will be expensive to install. Insufficient people will pay the monthly charges required to recoup this investment - because copper will be massively cheaper, and "just" good enough. People will eventually want this stuff, but the investors aren't prepared to wait long enough.
It is frustrating when you want this stuff, and you're willing to pay the premium for it. You just need another 10 million to be willing too.
The thing is... to make the government's target come true (both "the best" high speed broadband in Europe *and* universal obligation of 2Mbps) by 2015 means we have to overtake both Sweden & Holland, who aren't standing still.
Someone is going to be doing a lot of rollout to make that happen over 4 years. BT are getting themselves into a position where they have the core network; they have the technology for the rollout, and have the trained staff to effect a rollout. Fujitsu is still a dream, but perhaps with potential. Sky will attempt to cream the masses off onto a sub-standard core/service package. And then there's VM, who i (obviously) just don't rate.
And someone has to pay for it all too...
The mobile networks have some potential to play a part in this, but the government needs to have a different view of handing spectrum over this time (instead of it being effectively a humungous telecom tax, like the 3G auction a decade ago). Every £ paid for spectrum reduces the likelihood of it becoming useful broadband coverage to rural areas.
Satellite too. But I wonder how many people will think of this as a viable option? I suspect it will only happen when villages get organised en-masse.
PS - A better current example from the UK is perhaps the
Hindhead Tunnel. 4x the cost, but expecting 35,000 vehicles per day. It is a badly needed upgrade to the road - but it became a tunnel as a solution to avoid a beauty spot! Huge costs, but distinctly long-term value.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
deleted
