Why Switzerland has 25 Gbit internet and America doesn't

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Switzerland’s move to open-access, point-to-point fiber—where a neutral utility owns the lines and multiple ISPs compete over them—is contrasted with the United States’ patchwork of regulated monopolies and duopolies that often block municipal or new entrants. Commenters argue that high speeds like 25 Gbit/s are less about immediate household need and more about long-term infrastructure design, competition, and political choices around “natural monopolies.” Many see U.S. outcomes as driven less by pure market forces and more by regulatory capture, legal barriers, and path-dependent investments, with examples from other countries used to show both what works and what fails.

Swiss fiber model and its significance

  • Switzerland separates passive fiber infrastructure from retail ISPs: a neutral entity lays point‑to‑point fiber (often 4 strands per home), and multiple ISPs compete over it at the central office.
  • Commenters frame this like public roads: a shared, regulated “natural monopoly” layer with competition on top for service and price.
  • Coverage is not universal: urban areas are strong; rural areas still rely on copper, though targets like ~90% FTTH by 2030–2035 are mentioned. 25 Gbit service is only available in certain areas and via certain ISPs.

US broadband: regulation, monopolies, and the “free market”

  • Many argue the US wired market is not “free” but shaped by exclusive franchises, rights‑of‑way, anti‑municipal‑broadband laws, and heavy regulatory capture.
  • Courts weakened 1990s unbundling rules, entrenching incumbents’ control over last‑mile infrastructure.
  • Some push back, saying the problem is regulation and political manipulation, not markets per se.

Comparisons with other countries

  • Examples cited:
    • Australia (NBN’s mixed tech, political reversals, later return to FTTH).
    • UK, Netherlands, Germany: legacy incumbents, slow fiber rollout, messy wholesale rules.
    • Sweden, France: strong FTTH, open‑access models, multi‑ISP choice.
    • Canada: oligopoly with regulated resellers, prices still high.
    • Various rural co‑ops in US and elsewhere doing well with fiber.
  • Population density and geography are debated: some say US scale makes Swiss-style rollout harder; others note most people live in dense areas, so size is a weak excuse.

Municipal, co‑op, and community‑led networks

  • Many advocate municipal or co‑op fiber, citing successful cases (e.g., Longmont, CO; rural co‑ops; Chattanooga).
  • ISPs often lobby for statewide bans or restrictions on community broadband.
  • Anecdotes show incumbents upgrading only when faced with (even rumored) competition.

Debate over natural monopolies and free markets

  • One camp: infrastructure markets naturally drift to monopoly/oligopoly; only strong regulation or public ownership preserves competition and rural coverage.
  • Another camp: monopolies mainly arise from regulation, permitting, and property‑rights barriers; remove distortions and markets can work.
  • Broader ideological argument compares “not real free market” defenses to “not real communism.”

Technical clarifications and critiques

  • Several note that all internet is shared at some point; “dedicated” lines only guarantee the last mile and better provisioning, not an end‑to‑end personal circuit.
  • Most FTTH globally uses PON (shared fiber split among homes); Switzerland’s P2P approach is rare and arguably overkill for typical residential usage.
  • Some call the article technically sloppy or ragebait, pointing out limited 25 Gbit availability and emphasizing that congestion often occurs in backhaul/peering, not last mile.

Do consumers need 25 Gbit?

  • Many say 1 Gbit (or even 100–200 Mbit) is enough for most households; common bottlenecks are Wi‑Fi, servers, SSD speeds, and application design.
  • Others list heavy‑duty use cases: large game downloads, off‑site backups, media production, self‑hosting, remote NFS‑like workflows, LLM model downloads.
  • Argument appears that abundant bandwidth changes behavior over time (Jevons‑style): new applications emerge once capacity exists.

Meta: article quality and AI images

  • Multiple commenters dislike the “AI‑generated slop” imagery, finding it distracting or credibility‑reducing; others say the explanatory diagrams are useful but decorative images should be dropped.
  • Some readers otherwise praise the article’s clarity on natural monopolies and international comparison; others find it conceptually and technically weak or oversimplified.