Of course, given the massive up-front infrastructure investment, such competition is unlikely to materialize. What would be wonderful is if the government ran fiber to everyone's homes, and then let companies lease it from them. I wonder what the cost would be to last-mile a major city....
http://www.utopianet.org/why-utopia -- sixteen cities in northern Utah have done exactly this. My dedicated fiber connection runs about $35 a month for 10 up/10 down, no caps that I'm aware of.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/google-besto... -- Google is running fiber in Kansas City, KS. I'd assume they've run the numbers and can cost-effectively last-mile the whole city.
Competitive rates means not at a loss to the provider - so the libertarian can please stop screaming. At the same time, last mile should be treated as a commons, simply because having everybody provide that doesn't make a lick of economical sense.
(And if it has to be, split ISPs and last-mile providers. You can't run both. That removes a giant conflict of interest)
I thought it was more that cities (I think it's at that level, anyway) tend to sell exclusive rights to do that so wired competition beyond 1 cableco + 1 phoneco is largely illegal?
Competition only helps if there is lots of it, unfortunately we're in a duopoly market where even though theoretically there is competition, to get around anti-trust laws, they just follow each other so consumers are just screwed.
(Please take the following without any hint of political bias.) A government, on the other hand, builds infrastructure that isn't intended to have a return to it that's valued in money. Instead, that infrastructure benefits society in other ways. Arguably, building a network that functions as a "dumb pipe" where others can provide services on top of it--akin to a road--would allow greater competition in the business of moving bits because competitors would be freed from each of them expending and needlessly duplicating the others' infrastructure costs.
Capitalism, man…