Every article I've read about Verizon suggests they're run by dickheads, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to switch to an alternative provider, why is LLU not popular in the US? To make it clear, LLU means you can lease the same copper or fibre lines to run your own ISP as long as you install your own routing gear in the exchange. I know it's very popular in the UK.
Under the current regulatory guidance from the FCC, LLU is only viable in the US for customers connected directly to a Central Office. For customers connected to a remote terminal, there is insufficient space to install 3rd party gear, and the incumbent carrier gets to be a monopoly on data services.
LLU has a much clearer remit in places like Europe where all the copper was laid by government owned telecoms - thus, the copper is clearly public property. As part of privatizing these telcos, LLU was introduced to avoid creating a private monopoly on telecommunication.
In the US, the situation might charitably be described as a bit more complicated - the copper was laid by private actors, although under protection from the state. It is, at least, a lot less obvious that the copper isn't some sort of private property.
It was popular. IMHO cable company advertising, webcrapps, and needlessly-streaming video tricked people into thinking they need super high bandwidth, which can only be provided over coax. Since cable TV has traditionally been seen as a luxury service, its lobbyists had a much easier time avoiding being seen as a monopoly.
Every article I've read about Verizon suggests they're run by dickheads, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to switch to an alternative provider, why is LLU not popular in the US? To make it clear, LLU means you can lease the same copper or fibre lines to run your own ISP as long as you install your own routing gear in the exchange. I know it's very popular in the UK.