> Government handed comcast monopoly over the wire to your door. Now we're sweeping the problem under the rug by policing what goes down the wire.

> 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...)

Comcast is the big ISP in most areas because it was unregulated. DSL was regulated under title II and cable wasn't. So capital flowed to cable companies who weren't subject to invasive regulations. That's why cable internet is so popular in America compared to the rest of the world. It wasn't until telecom ISPs were classified title I that Verizon and ATT decided to upgrade their dsl services.

> That's why cable internet is so popular in America compared to the rest of the world.

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.