I may be wrong, but I believe this would re-introduce avenues for competitors to lease capacity on -- if properly regulated -- a parity basis with the incumbent

I may be wrong, but I believe this would re-introduce avenues for competitors to lease capacity on -- if properly regulated -- a parity basis with the incumbent's own cost to provide. Let some government cost accountants loose on these incumbents' books. Then let me buy my capacity from a company that isn't trying to screw me vertically nor horizontally and that doesn't e.g. conscript me into a basic cable TV package when all I want is Internet. Perhaps then, as well, we would be able to actually segregate infrastructure development and maintenance costs and be sure we are getting what we are paying for. E.g. if my cost goes up, it's because I'm actually getting more in return. At a time when wholesale bandwidth costs have been halving year upon year (at least, as of a couple of years ago), the near doubling of my monthly bill over the past few years is sorely in need of some -- independent and measurable and demonstrable -- justification. Finally, Internet is no longer a luxury. It's a necessity. With often only a single distributor in many locations, they are effectively a common carrier. After all the bad behaviour on the part of these companies, I have ZERO sympathy left for them. They've abused their positions. It's time for that abuse to end. P.S. Yeah, I'm pissed. Probably not the best position from which to comment. This month's Crapcast bill contained another circa 5.5 % increase -- for nothing. It's been well less than a year since their last increase, and inflation is running far under that figure. As for build-out costs: I notice when my neighbours (that's one family of two adults) are home on weekends, because my one, rather occasional Netflix stream drops from quality 4 to 3 or not infrequently to 2. They aren't doing diddly to improve capacity/delivery in my neighbourhood.