> So why aren’t we fighting for that? Because it is an inherently unstable equilibrium. Having two communication networks (of the same level of service, so thi

> So why aren’t we fighting for that? Because it is an inherently unstable equilibrium. Having two communication networks (of the same level of service, so this does not apply to adding a next-generation network with far higher bandwidth than the exiting network) is as economically sensible as having two power grids or two competing sewer pipes: It necessarily almost doubles the costs (because what dominates the costs is laying the cables, not buying the uplink). A link that is unused because the house is using the competitor's network still has nearly the same costs for the network owner as if the house were using their network. Which means the best strategy for the established network is to undercut the new competitor in order to kill it. The marginal costs of connecting a customer are minimal, while losing too many customers to the competition would allow them to do the same thing to you. That's why people generally wouldn't invest in such a network in the first place. Competition works at the backbone level, as there is enough traffic overall to fill the pipes of multiple competitors. But last-mile networks consist of links that are either used and paid for, or unused with no option to sell the capacity to somebody else, so there is a natural tendency towards a monopoly (which is also in a way in the interest of the customer: Building two networks necessarily doubles the cost, which ultimately the customers have to pay for). Also, they are in charge of the American internet anyway. One law regulating some aspect of the internet does not in any way change how much power people have over some other aspect. If people can make a law banning hacker news, they can do so without NN regulation existing beforehand.