>Wasn't the infrastructure they leverage heavily subsidized by the public? Not directly so, no. If anything they get taxed very heavily because they are an eas

>Wasn't the infrastructure they leverage heavily subsidized by the public? Not directly so, no. If anything they get taxed very heavily because they are an easy target (because they can't pick up and leave. Some argue that some local governments signed exclusivity deals, which can be considered an indirect subsidy. But that was usually only one side of the quid pro quo. In exchange, the cable company had to wire up poor neighborhoods, submit themselves to price regulation, etc. But exclusive deals were banned before cable internet was even invented.