| I don't think your argument is all that sound (1) the way to define up and coming economies seem to fit into confirmation bias and/or survivor bias. (2) why is size such a strong variable? (3) US had massive rollout of dial up, why/how did broadband get established if size of existing infrastructure is inversely correlated to adaption of new tech? (If I understand your argument correctly). Broadband should never really have rolled out. For that matter, there is a large deployment of satellite internet in the US, wouldn't your low earth satellite example also be a counterexample? (4) why would advancement in one sector be counter evidence for market capture and regulatory hurdles in a different sector? The examples just seem unrelated. (5) US internet speeds have been pretty slow for a long time. Could it be that market capture and lack of competition is a larger factor rather than the cost of adoption? Another example, Japan has been pretty far ahead of mobile phone tech for a while. If the cost of adaption of new tech were the biggest issue, wouldn't they have stagnated some time ago? That was an already saturated market for over a decade, yet still moved forward. (6) could it be more important that new markets lack existing monopolistic capture? Though, I will agree that existing infrastructure/deployments do create an inertia for stagnation. I have that view for US road infrastructure. It is all going to last many decades more, and with it the single occupancy vehicle. |