Cory Doctorow doesn't just report on internet speeds; he exposes a fundamental flaw in how we think about competition in essential infrastructure. While most analysis focuses on price or download numbers, Doctorow reveals that the real battle is over the physical layer: who owns the trench, and who gets to plug into the wall.
The Myth of the Free Market in Fiber
Doctorow opens with a startling benchmark that reframes the entire conversation about broadband. "If you live in Switzerland you can get a 25Gbit fiber link to your home. That's 25Gbit symmetrical – upload and download. On a dedicated connection that's yours and yours alone." This isn't a futuristic fantasy; it is the current reality for Swiss citizens, a stark contrast to the fragmented, often shared connections found elsewhere. He argues that this success stems from recognizing a concept familiar to anyone who has played city-building games: "fiber is a 'natural monopoly.' It doesn't make any sense to build multiple, competing fiber networks – any more than it would make sense to build multiple, competing sewer systems or electric grids."
This insight cuts through the noise of "free market" rhetoric. In the United States, the assumption is that competition drives innovation, but Doctorow points out that the result is often redundant digging and capital waste. "In the US, private fiber providers get city permits to dig up the roads and lay their network. If you have two competing networks, they dig up the road twice." The consequence is a system where companies prioritize extracting rent from existing assets rather than mobilizing capital for better service. He notes that "US fiber networks tend to be under built," meaning that even when a user pays for "gigabit" speeds, they are often sharing that bandwidth with an entire neighborhood, receiving the advertised speed only during off-peak hours.
Critics might argue that private investment is the only engine capable of scaling infrastructure quickly, but Doctorow counters that without a structured framework, private actors simply carve up territories. He describes the US landscape as dominated by a "cartel of massive incumbents" who "divide up the country into exclusive territories like the Pope dividing up the 'New World.'" This historical parallel underscores the severity of the stagnation: when competition is artificial, service quality becomes a secondary concern to asset extraction.
The US is dominated by a cartel of massive incumbents who are less interested in making profits than they are from extracting rent.
The German Overbuild and the Swiss Solution
The article then pivots to Germany, offering a nuanced look at a system that, while regulated, still suffers from inefficiency. Doctorow explains that German regulators, in an attempt to encourage competition, promoted "competing networks in competing trenches, often just meters apart." This approach, while theoretically sound for fostering competition, resulted in "squandering capital digging trenches that they could have spent on providing faster and/or cheaper connections."
In contrast, the Swiss model, which Doctorow calls a "Goldilocks approach," found a middle ground. The system relies on a "neutral, open hub" at every home, where a four-strand fiber line terminates. "Any carrier can provide service over those four strands," allowing users to switch providers "with the click of a mouse." This structure decouples the physical infrastructure from the service provider, a concept that echoes the "last mile" debates in telecommunications history where the bottleneck is often the final connection to the user.
The most surprising element of Doctorow's analysis is the role of the incumbent carrier, Swisscom. Historically viewed as a bureaucratic hurdle, the company initially pushed for this multi-strand system to prevent monopolization. "Incredibly, it was Swisscom that pushed for the multi-strand, dedicated fiber system, on the grounds that anything less would lead to monopolization." However, the company eventually tried to reverse course, seeking to replace the open system with a shared, slower model that would give them control over competitors.
Swisscom's foray into uncharacteristic reasonableness was short-lived, as the company soon demanded an end to the neutral, four-strand, point-to-point system.
The resolution of this conflict highlights the importance of institutional checks. The Swiss federal courts ruled against Swisscom, fining the company "CHF18m for wasting everyone's time with this stupid idea." This legal victory preserved the open architecture, ensuring that the infrastructure remained a public utility while the services running over it remained competitive. This stands in sharp contrast to the US, where regulatory capture often allows incumbents to dictate terms.
Infrastructure as a Political Battleground
Doctorow broadens the scope from technical architecture to political survival, arguing that broadband is no longer just a utility but a prerequisite for civic engagement. "You can't turn people out for a protest, or run an election campaign... without broadband." This framing elevates the discussion from consumer choice to democratic necessity. He warns that state-provided broadband is a "tempting target for political corruption and regulatory capture," citing examples where government actors have sought to use network control for surveillance or censorship.
He specifically critiques the idea of running the internet "like a utility" if that model implies total government control. "Saying that broadband should be run 'like a utility,' raises more questions than it answers." Instead, he advocates for a "pluralized" utility model where the city provides the physical conduit and a "public option" for service, but also rents space to independent ISPs, co-ops, and nonprofits. This ensures that no single political entity, whether federal or municipal, can dictate the flow of information.
A "utility" model for broadband should mean running conduit to every home in town, with point-to-point connections that deliver broadband via a municipally owned network – but not just that.
The argument extends to social media, where Doctorow warns against treating platforms as utilities without addressing the moral hazard of centralized control. "If there's one thing we've learned from zuckermuskian legacy social media, it's that centralized control over speech forums is a moral hazard and an attractive nuisance." This connects the physical layer of fiber to the digital layer of content, suggesting that the same principles of open access and competition must apply to both to prevent authoritarian overreach.
Critics might note that implementing such a complex, multi-layered system requires significant upfront capital and sustained political will, which can be difficult to maintain in volatile economic climates. However, Doctorow's evidence from Switzerland suggests that the long-term benefits of a resilient, competitive network outweigh the initial complexity.
Bottom Line
Doctorow's strongest contribution is the demonstration that "natural monopoly" does not have to mean "single provider," provided the physical infrastructure is separated from the service layer. The piece's greatest vulnerability lies in the political difficulty of replicating the Swiss model in environments where regulatory capture is deeply entrenched. The reader should watch for how municipal governments attempt to adopt these "open access" principles in the face of incumbent lobbying, as this will be the next frontier of the broadband debate.