The article you quote clearly points out the reason for the difference is lack of competition here vs. incredible competition in Europe. It is also talking about the 'quality' from a shareholder point of view, not from a customer point of view.
I guess you could take the stance that we should have monopolies because that gives them the ability to squeeze customers for more money to invest. Such a stance is anti-capitalistic though, and another example of why business actually hates the concept of the free market.
Bingo. They are talking about how wealthy the companies are from an investor's standpoint; How much profits they are bringing.
The US companies are valued SO MUCH HIGHER because they face limited competition and able to overcharge AT WILL.
This article is complaining about how they wish European wireless companies could rip off consumers as much as US ones can! -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Yes, exactly. Of course it is true that a company that overcharges its customers will have extra cash to invest (if they feel like it) but when they have such limited competition... why bother? Where is the incentive? Look how long it is taking some US companies just to roll out 3G!
Coincidentally, Karl also posted a piece today about "France to Spend $27 Billion On Fiber to the Home"; last time I checked, they were in Europe. So apparently, Europe doesn't really have a problem raising cash for infrastructure, they have a 'problem' raising dividends for the shareholders.
·
·