Sure -- let's say free market is a solution? Free market only works if I have choice. Right now, my only choice for internet service is Comcast. Free market won't do a thing until I have actual choices here.
> The way to get more choices is to let anyone compete to be your ISP, by liberating the wire.
While he's killing net neutrality, Pai is also doing what he can to limit broadband competition. So, thanks to him, we're getting the worst of both worlds: less consumer-friendly regulation AND less competition.
* FCC removes competition requirement from Charter-TWC merger conditions (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/3/15161456/fcc-charter-merge...)
* ISPs who don’t want competition get good news from FCC chair: FCC to kill merger condition that required competition in 1 million locations (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/isps-who-dont-wa...)
* One broadband choice counts as “competition” in new FCC proposal (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/one-b...)
I'm not so sure about that. The coax used for cable is a higher-bandwidth cabling than the POTS twisted-pair lines used for telephone service, so the cable companies started out with better infrastructure. DSL also has distance/bandwidth limits ("distance from the central office") that cable internet doesn't have, so many people are unable to get DSL that rus at acceptable speeds. Cable television has also been widespread and popular in the US since the 80s, at least. I'm not sure if that's true in countries were DSL has been popular.
I, personally, would attribute cable internet's popularity (in the US) to the technical superiority of the legacy infrastructure it is built on.
To entice them to invest in their area because nobody else would.
Infrastructure isn't software development. It requires billions of dollars of capital investment. That investment isn't going to go to many areas unless it's nearly guaranteed a return, hence the labyrinth of monopolistic guarantees bestowed upon ISPs.
It's not clear to me that consumer options would flourish if you were to roll back all ISP related regulations and void existing contracts. I suspect the current system would just become more entrenched.
No, companies will go with the cheaper route i.e. continue the comfy collusions they have now. You're insane if you think they'll magically start sharing their own infrastructures with each other.
The first build out of fiber to the curb is expensive. 2-N is cheap if you do it right.
Or maybe you're saying that private ISPs will perform the deployment and then share their fiber? Which seems wildly unrealistic.
firms specialize, it's an important attribute of a functioning free market. If there is demand for running fiber through conduits, local firms might specialize in that type of construction, especially if local knowledge and working with local governments can be leveraged across customers. Many industries are not vertically integrated where specialization is more efficient than vertical integration. (i.e. Ford stopped making tires and glass)