> For any given U.S. household, there is often only one or two choices for getting
> high-speed Internet* access and that’s unlikely to change.
> Furthermore, Internet access is often bundled with other services
> making it challenging to switch ISPs. It is this lack of
> consumer choice that leads to the need for strong net neutrality.
Spot on. The reason Comcast and others can play this game is because they're a monopoly at the local level. They've worked with the help of regulation to snuff out all serious competition. Pull back the regulation (at the local, state, and federal levels) and watch the competition spring up, and watch the Comcasts of the world change their practices when they actually have to compete.
I'm actually switching away from Verizon for my cell phone service this weekend precisely because of their role in destroying net neutrality. I expect T-Mobile to be slightly worse, or at least no better, in terms of service-per-dollar but at least my conscience will be clear. Who knows, maybe it'll even be better!
I actually switched from Verizon to T-Mo about two years ago, and while it isn't better than Verizon, it isn't substantially worse. If you live in a fairly well populated area (cities of over 5000 people or so), or along major roadways, I've never had any issues. The only time Verizon did much better than T-Mobile for me was driving through Western Colorado and Utah, where T-Mobile had no service, and Verizon barely had voice.
> Pull back the regulation (at the local, state, and federal levels) and watch the competition spring up
Unlikely. The monopolies that the cable and telcos used to have as infrastructure providers were granted because the eminent domain power of government was necessary to get the physical infrastructure, and it was considered a public good to have the infrastructure and better to have one infrastructure provider with "public access" rules (for cable) or "common carrier" rules (for telephone service).
Without government intervention, it would be practically impossible to get the property access necessary to compete, particularly at the last mile, with the vendors with existing infrastructure built with property rights acquired through government action, even if there were no longer protections for the incumbents.
> high-speed Internet* access and that’s unlikely to change.
> Furthermore, Internet access is often bundled with other services
> making it challenging to switch ISPs. It is this lack of
> consumer choice that leads to the need for strong net neutrality.
Spot on. The reason Comcast and others can play this game is because they're a monopoly at the local level. They've worked with the help of regulation to snuff out all serious competition. Pull back the regulation (at the local, state, and federal levels) and watch the competition spring up, and watch the Comcasts of the world change their practices when they actually have to compete.