> I disagree in terms of regulation: there is plenty of regulation on broadband internet, except it tends to discourage competition against broadband providers.

> I disagree in terms of regulation: there is plenty of regulation on broadband internet, except it tends to discourage competition against broadband providers. Well, yes - when I use the word "regulation", I'm implying the sort of regulation that we see with respect to Con Edison. They can't so much as change the way they itemize fees on my bill (!) without regulatory approval. That certainly creates problems of another sort, but on the other hand, the actual service provided[0] and the pricing is pretty much a solved problem (as much as one can expect)[1]. I'm sure ConEd would like the sort of legislative protectionism that cable companies receive, with no requirements surrounding price or quality, but thankfully, they don't have that (and altering the status quo is always tough in general - in this case, inertia is on consumers' side). Obviously regulation could be established to make things worse, but I think it's clear what kind of regulation we're looking for for the purposes of this discussion. And I'm intentionally deferring the question of how any of these policies would be enacted - I'm just comparing two alternatives states to the status quo. [0] excluding customer service, which is going to be mediocre at best no matter what. [1] Interestingly, pricing is partly "solved" due to the introduction of ESCOs, which are a way to privatize the supply chain (at the consumer's choice). "Free market" and "regulation" are not mutually exclusive - we could easily establish a regulated monopoly on last-mile copper wire while allowing multiple competing upstream providers.[2]