I would also agree that ISP are mostly monopolies. You can always decide to use FB or not. But you have to use Internet now, and it all goes through the same pipes.

Keep in mind those pipes were usually built with taxpayer dollars (sorry for poor source but I feel this is common knowledge)

https://www.quora.com/Who-funded-and-built-the-infrastructur...

> Internet service is also far more vital than Facebook.

Yes. So by lowering prices, more people will get access. I feel like you are adding a +1 here to the anti-net neutrality view (cue the internet.org initiative by facebook).

You're overlooking the fact that open access to the full internet would not be what a 75% price-reduced 'offering' would entail. We've already been over this argument in fact watching Facebook's 'free basics' attempt to lock India down. Paying less for something different is not really a reduction in price, either.

Pai, Republicans, and ISPs don't want or expect lower prices. They want higher profits. This isn't about wider access. The mission of public, for-profit companies is not to provide a public service -- it's to maximize profits. They're now doing it by engineering their own regulations.

When Google Fiber rolls into a town, prices from entrenched ISPs drop drastically. There's nothing stopping ISPs from providing cheaper and better service - except for the moral hazard of monopolistic control, free from the normal pressures of supply and demand.

When Google Fiber came into my area, the speed went up by 6 fold, I'm still switching the moment I'm physically able even if it were slower and more expensive.

That's extremely doubtful. There are already programs in place for low income households to get broadband for almost free.