> Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off servic

> Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off service, reasons for cutting off service, minimum service levels I don't see why that would be the case. You're assuming that laws which establish common carrier status for ISPs have to mirror laws which established common carrier status for telephone companies and I don't think they need to. I would say some of these are good. Companies don't want to terminate users and I think they would gladly accept restrictions on who and when they can terminate, in exchange for immunity as long as they follow the rules. I think establishing a minimum service tier (50/50 or 100/100 seems safe) and putting a price cap on that minimum service, while allowing them to charge whatever the market will allow for higher service tiers seems safe and seems like something the existing ISPs won't hate too much. > they'll also be required to provide service to money-losing regions. I would fundamentally argue against this. I see no reason to force a company to service a customer they don't want to service. Create incentives which directly (not adjacently) align with your desired outcome. If the cost of providing that minimum level of service is above the price cap for that minimum level of service and the government wants to get involved, the most I think they should do is offer a post-paid per-customer subsidy. ISPs will complain mightily about this one since their costs are hugely front-loaded, but, it's not something they MUST do it's just something they would have as an option and it's an option that I think would encourage more rural fiber projects and more WISPs.