Laying cables is really expensive. It takes a lot of capital and the return on investment is long-term. Two things that aren't very popular among Wall Street or VCs. Even assuming you undertook such a venture, Comcast/ATT/Verizon have really _really_ deep pockets. They can undercut any price you care to offer.
The idea that "regulation" is causing high prices is farcical on its face. There aren't enough schools and libraries to make any difference to the bottom line.
The market is uncompetitive because broadband is a natural monopoly. Just like roads, water, sewer, and electricity. The capital costs are so high there is usually no business justification for having more than 1-2 providers in a given area. There are a few exceptions but they prove the rule.
A "free market" in broadband would look much like the "free market" in electricity: Either the government or a regulated utility granted monopoly power by the government should run the fiber. Any ISP that wants to compete can hook up at the local CO. The equipment on both ends of that fiber can even be owned by the ISP so if new technology allows faster speeds nothing blocks the upgrade (the favorite excuse for pro-corporatist shills).
The big three have fought anything that smells like a free market tooth and nail, outright purchasing legislation at the state level to squash municipal attempts to do anything like this.
The funny thing is the big ISPs rely on government-granted taking of private property in the form of right-of-way to run their cables... something for which property owners receive no compensation. So much for "using our lines" as the ATT CEO likes to claim.
To give an example of the type of competition an Isp upstart would face, just look at what happened with google fiber. That was a legal battle every step of the way for them and the incumbents defended against google's deep pockets. You have to have a heck of a defense to fend of a Google invasion. Yes, local government regulations played a role in this, but they blocked federal attempts to unravel the mess of regulations that allowed entire cities to be Comcast cities or time warner cities, and people argued it was a good thing to stop this.
Look at the few cities that can and do offer municipal broadband - competition thrives and consumers have good choices, and the big three have to play ball to get customers; rolling out new lines, better speeds and prices, no caps. Tacoma, WA has municipal broadband and it's great; you have lots of options, including Comcast and century link if you desire. And it's this way because of the municipal, not in spite of it.
BTW, before the law enshrined AT&T as a "natural" monopoly, there were lots of phone companies who seemed to have no trouble at all running wires everywhere.
Sure there is. It's called local loop unbundling[1] (applied to Internet, rather than legacy telephone networks). Europe successfuly used it to boost ISP competition. In US though it didn't go further than copper DSL lines, and we still have this messed up monopolized market.
ISPs should remain privately owned and operated. But the so called "last mile" should be a shared utility like a road. Government should build it, maintain it, and support it. But once that last mile hits the exchanges then different competing private ISPs should pay a licence fee from the exchange onto the final mile to people's homes.
The last mile is the most expensive element in internat deployments, and also the one most encumbered by regulation (e.g. digging up roads, putting cable on existing poles, installing cable with other utilities, etc).
But most importantly other businesses depend on the reliable fast internet to make money. It is a utility. Entire new industries will crop up from superior internet (like video streaming services did from the last leap forward, and streaming music the leap before that). The US's entire ability to make money is being curtailed by low quality internet.
Google had the right idea, just not deep enough pockets and a long enough attention span to see it through. This is a billion dollar project per state.
I don't think it's technically feasible.
But highly improbable, because it's very expensive to lay cable and hard to recoup the investment. There are countless articles on the Internet as to why this is so. One from 2014 has this poignant sentence:
> There is a ray of hope, though. Just this month, FCC chair Tom Wheeler indicated that the agency might be willing to step in and help do away with all the state-level laws blocking municipal broadband projects.
Not bloody likely.
https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor...
Trump did name Pai as chair, but he was already on the commission (appointed by Obama in 2012).
That's a terrible, click-baity headline, even by the low standards normally set by vice.com.
Because it has a Republican majority as a result of Trump's election, and Trump selected the chair from among the two Republican members, so Trump's election and Trump personally have set the direction of the current FCC. Hence, Trump's FCC.
Sorry, its makeup has nothing to do with "Trump's election". All three current members were appointed by Obama.
Now, Trump is likely to get to appoint at least three members. At that point, it could, perhaps, justifiably be called "Trump's" FCC.
Until that happens, though, calling an independent agency in which all of the members were appointed by Obama (and over which the executive branch has no direct authority) "Trump's" is so disingenuous it crosses the borderline into dishonesty.
Also, while Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly were nominated by Obama, they were chosen in consultation with Republican congressional leadership (because the FCC must remain bipartisan by law). I'm not sure that one can say that they are "Obama appointees" in the same way that judicial appointees are.
That's a pretty small universe. Of the most recent 6, only 4 had two terms. Of the most recent 9, still only 4 had two full terms.
> Any reason to thinks Trump or at least the republican party won't too?
Yes.
> Real humans who really wanted him voted him in and they're probably happy with their choice.
Most of the minority that voted for him may, though polling data show that Trump has lost standing with most groups, including those he was strongest with, since the election. With a barely-sufficient minority win, Trump can't lose much ground and hope to be reelected.
Remember 2004?
