This is a popular conception but until this recent FCC order it was mostly wrong.
Most people in the U.S. access the Internet over 4 types of physical networks:
- cable TV coax
- fiber optics to the house
- DSL over existing telephone lines
- wireless signals (4G or WiFi, mostly)
Of those, only the telephone lines were an existing regulated utility. Cable networks, fiber networks, and wireless networks were not classified as utilities and were exempt from most regulations that we take for granted on the phone network, like being able to purchase and use telephone service if you want it, or calling whoever you want without being blocked or paying extra.
> But I can use the Internet anywhere with a sufficient enough population density if I pay for a wireless data plan.
Now you can. Until now, wireless data companies were under no legal obligation to sell to you, and under no obligation to serve you any particular website you request.
In short, it seems the law is catching up to where you already thought it was.
And on point: here in Sweden we have both privately owned and state owned broadband infrastructure, and while it's hard to prove, i'm convinced that this came out of the university networks (SUNET) building out the framework for this in university cities in the 90s and back.
As a result of this we had good grounds for competing ISPs which today is about 12 nation wide (for 10M people), on top of which there are usually a few per city also competing for customers.
This leads to me being able to choose between 16 (!) different ISP:s on my fiber I installed last month, which will cost me $38 USD/mo for uncapped 100/100 Mbps or $89 USD/mo for uncapped 1000/100 Mbps.
It has also been shown that cities with a state owned network infrastructure leads to 20-30% cheaper broadband. I can't find the specific study, but it's referenced here: http://skl.se/tjanster/press/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv2016/overens...
Nothing is a utility until it's made one.
According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility:
Broadband internet services (both fixed-line and mobile) are increasingly being included within the definition.
As for which things are "truly necessary", that definition is not universal. In The Netherlands, over 90% of consumer banking by now is done over the Internet. That has lead to the closing of over 30% of bank branch offices, with associated cost savings. Those savings would not have been possible had Internet access not been classified as a public utility, because bank access was similarly regulated.
> A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service.
Who is the organization that maintains the infrastructure of the Internet? Does it include my cable modem? My router? Why or why not?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paoloner...
In particular, there's no reason why IP-based networks ought to be viewed as less important than telephone service, given that telephony is rapidly becoming just one of many services that happens to be delivered over IP networks.
According to whom? The Internet is delivered to homes on top of existing regulated utilities, that are quite essential to our survival. But I can use the Internet anywhere with a sufficient enough population density if I pay for a wireless data plan. Because the true value of the Internet is global availability of information, access to that information doesn't need to be tied to a physical address in the same way a life-saving device like a telephone does. Really energy and sanitation is what we should be thinking of. They're truly necessary utilities.