Sorry, who is debating this? "Network carriers"? Which ones? And what do you mean by 'today's optical grid networks'?

Because if you're referring to the United States I don't know why any 'network carriers' would be talking about this, simply because none of them care. Every major ISP has made it clear they don't think anyone needs internet faster than a couple megabits a second. They're eating up 95% profit margins and refuse to improve / invest in new infrastructure and services, because they exist in a zero-competition bubble and it would cost money to do that (which would cut into their exhorbitant profits we pay for overpriced internet of inferior quality to just about all of Europe).

So I guess this article is cool, so us Americans can think about how great the internet in Germany is going to be, while less than half our country has access to even cable, a decent chunk are on terrible DSL, and some are even on dial-up, while only about 0.5% have fiber of any kind.

Network carriers do care, because increased capacity on minimal infrastructure is very tempting.

Americans will never see this technology.

Network providers in the U.S. are the content providers, and they have a negative incentive to upgrade any competition that will reduce the value of the content they provide.

Americans will never see this technology.

Network providers in the U.S. are the content providers, and they have a negative incentive to upgrade any competition that will reduce the value of the content they provide.

Then explain the development of current network infrastructure. For instance, Verizon has increased their speed exponentially over the last 10 years in my area. They have also begun offering content via their FiOS service, which provides TV and internet. By your reasoning, they wouldn't have done this because access to Amazon prime, Netflix, Hulu, and other services would compete with their TV service. How do you account for increased network speeds across regions and companies over the past two decades? There is no doubt network speeds are faster than ten years ago, which were faster than ten years before that.

@trekgeek1: you're right. Odd how the spirit of competition seems to have swooshed right by their heads. Naturally, we all want faster and faster, and the providers are going to be tripping over each other to get our business.

Americans will never see this technology.

Network providers in the U.S. are the content providers, and they have a negative incentive to upgrade any competition that will reduce the value of the content they provide.

u r a retard

Then explain the development of current network infrastructure. For instance, Verizon has increased their speed exponentially over the last 10 years in my area. They have also begun offering content via their FiOS service, which provides TV and internet. By your reasoning, they wouldn't have done this because access to Amazon prime, Netflix, Hulu, and other services would compete with their TV service. How do you account for increased network speeds across regions and companies over the past two decades? There is no doubt network speeds are faster than ten years ago, which were faster than ten years before that.

You're answering the wrong question. The question you should ask is: Are Americans getting the best value for the money they pay to their providers?

@baudrunner - You obviously missed the point where the vast majority of internet subscribers have no competition to even chose from. You get:

1 DSL provider
1 Cable provider
Dial up

And those are most people's choices.