F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

Regarding wireless, you don't seem to understand how the industry is structured. While it's true there are many brand names on the shelf in walmart, there are only 3 actual providers in a given metro region. Virgin, for instance, uses Sprints network, which is a combination of deals done with the owners of spectrum across the country.

As I have made clear, and as I think is fairly obvious to anyone who has moved between various ISP markets in this country, I believe that the quality of internet service is positively correlated with the number of providers in an area. I have cheap and reliable internet with three ISPs. None of the three throttle their connections in this market, and one has just introduced 10Gbps fiber to the home. The fiber provider is actively expanding, but even if you don't live on a street with access, you can get cheap reliable service from either of the remaining two.

I think it would be better for any individual in the US who cares about their internet access to move their markets in a direction from one ISP to more ISPs (like the area I live in) than to pass a law enforcing net neutrality and forbidding any kind of rate-limiting.

I do care about ISPs being able to offer me as many types of service as possible, and me being allowed to choose the service I prefer. Again, my general preference is for unlimited internet, but my preferences are bounded by costs. Another hypothetical: Suppose I am willing to pay $15 for internet access, and the only service an ISP is willing to offer at that price is throttled in some way (data cap, certain sites slower, whatever scheme). If you eliminate this as an option, then you have eliminated my access entirely, because $15 is my limit. In this way, marginal customers may be harmed by net neutrality.

I am not convinced by the argument that the internet will be ruined if some internet service contracts are rate-limited in some way. The biggest threat to the next (Google|Facebook|Twitter) is not any ISP, but (Google|Facebook|Twitter) existing and having a large network effect for its services. And to be honest I have not seen much more argument beyond this point. Even if I were to accept this argument, I think the pathetic internet connections that some people in the US have (there are people still on dialup and Forgive me if this is a misinterpretation, but you seem to jump from my hypothetical of _one_ ISP out of >1 in a market offering _a_ plan that is rate-limited in some way (what if it is just a data limit? This does not favor any portion of the web over another.) to there being no un-rate-limited service contracts available. I find this incredibly unlikely, primarily due to the huge unpopularity of rate-limited plans among a vocal minority of internet users.

Finally, I am quite confident that two ISPs fighting for my dollars are more likely to offer me something I want than two ISPs fighting for a favorable interpretation of some regulation.

Do I need to watch a late night talk show at 1080 on YouTube instead of 720? No, it has only modest impact on my experience, but I do it anyway because there's no cost associated to doing so. I can freely waste vast amounts of bandwidth (or storage, or processing power) with minimum concern, rather than focusing on conservation.

My phone is another marvel in that regard. It costs $0.50 per year in electricity, about 1% to 2% of what my desktop PC consumes. I can waste my phone's resources freely with very minimum concerns for the environment, especially relative to most other things in my house or life that use electricity.

Water and electricity will never have these properties. It's unlikely the average person will ever be able to waste vast amounts of either without concern.

Nope.[1] Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal under federal law since 1996. There is no competition because the business proposition sucks. The only sensible play in most places is to try and target a niche market of wealthy neighborhoods that'll pay for the triple play. That is prohibited under most franchise agreements.

Four nationwide competitors isn't a monopoly any more than Pepsi and Coke are, who own almost all soft drink brands.

[1] e.g. http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf (Second whereas paragraph).