> Most of the others remove regulatory requirements or speed up permitting processes for ISPs. This, I can possibly get behind, depending on the details. Part

> Most of the others remove regulatory requirements or speed up permitting processes for ISPs. This, I can possibly get behind, depending on the details. Part of the reason we end up with regional monopolies or duopolies is the high up-front capital costs involved with building out a network. This unto itself favors bigger players. Additional costs, whether from regulatory controls or making the permitting process more painful than intrinsically necessary further stacks the deck in favor of big players. So removing unnecessary regulations and making it easy to get permits is Good. Arguments against government-provided services are not intrinsically wrong in all cases, either. It is quite easy for the government to set the rules such that competition is impossible for all but the biggest or politically-favored (or both) players. That's if competition is possible at all; de jure and de facto bans have the same effect. So, I do view government-provided ISPs as something to be approached with caution. However, if there's any governmental level where the locals have a chance at keeping their government accountable to abuses and forcing the government to allow an ISP that sucks less to offer services, that's going to be at the local level. It's a numbers game, and the getting the numbers together needed to remind the administrators, councilors, and other officials that they are servants, not masters, is far more achievable at the neighborhood, municipal, or county levels. At the state level, it gets a lot harder a lot faster, and come the federal level you are playing on hard mode. That's why consider this proposal to be misguided at best. Time to add another thing to the list of things to write my rep and senator about.