Of course competition would be the best solution but in case you didn't know, infrastructure is massively expensive and that greatly limits the ability for a ne

Of course competition would be the best solution but in case you didn't know, infrastructure is massively expensive and that greatly limits the ability for a new comer to enter the market even on a regional level. It is in every ISPs best interest to be the sole provider of service in an area because they will have a better adoption rate and thus remake their investment quicker. This is the whole basis behind Comcast's argument in favor of the Time Warner take over, they aren't reducing competition because they each have their own areas where they operate so they so don't compete in the first place. Think about that for a minute, the CEO of the biggest ISP in America admitted that they do not compete with the second biggest ISP. There is a finite amount of competition the infrastructure market can handle due to high costs of entry and diminishing returns on that high cost as more players enter the market in an area. There is a finite amount of customers an ISP can have in any given area, it may make sense to build out to a market if you are going to be the only provider but if you are going to be the second or third provider your customer base is going to be smaller and as you start cutting up the available customer base there is likely not enough there to spend the upfront costs of building the infrastructure if you aren't going to get the amount of customers you need to support it. The ISPs are already monopolies regardless of net neutrality rules, net neutrality will just require a certain level of fairness in how they treat the traffic of the content that passes through them. I would support requiring ISPS to open their wires for lease by competitors but net neutrality seems like a great second option if that is politically unfeasible.