Doesn't America have anti monopoly laws? Curious why those don't apply to ISPs . Isn't this an admission that 'net neutrality ' is a bandaid to the problem of ISP monopoly.

Also, Philosophically you won't really care about net neutrality if you have ISP choice. correct?

If nobody wants to dig and lay cable to offer services to a small town what are you gonna do? The US had very low population density so the cost of teaching small communities can be huge.

It got this way because the companies that are dominant ISPs today were not always ISPs; they were cable TV companies. The cable companies were allowed to have regional monopolies where a city would allow one cable company to serve all the people in the city, but they didn't have to share their networks with each other. This wasn't so bad, because the cable companies don't really make TV shows; they buy TV shows from HBO or whoever. In principle, it wouldn't really matter that much which cable company you you paid, because they all would have more or less the same options. Since they only offered broadcast services they didn't qualify as telecommunications services either, so Title 2 doesn't apply (Title 1 does instead). But then the internet was invented, and now the cable companies deliver internet service over the same networks as they provide TV.

And they're still technically not monopolies, because even if they're the only place you can get 100MBps service, you might still be able to get 2Mbps service from the phone company (or dial-up service if you're more than a couple of miles from the POP), and internet service is internet service.

The phone companies also have regional monopolies, but because they have to share their network with everyone there are lots of options. I can buy my DSL from a dozen companies, but the circuit will be provisioned by AT&T. This means that none of these companies are likely to act in bad faith; their customers can switch easily, and the FCC is generally watching.

Having more options is indeed another way out; the cable companies have actually gotten a lot better in the last few years, if you're in a market where there are other choices. In some cities you can get Google Fiber, and cable there has suddenly started competing. In SF you can get Sonic.net's fiber service, etc.

> Doesn't America have anti monopoly laws? Curious why those don't apply to ISPs . Isn't this an admission that 'net neutrality ' is a bandaid to the problem of ISP monopoly.

You are correct in that the root of this problem is that our anti-monopoly laws aren't being enacted here because there's too much money being made by those on top. We should fix that problem as well.

However, I'm not convinced that "just get a different ISP" would work in the US like it does elsewhere. Service companies here are very good at hiding details and the US generally ends up with a small handful of choices that are all terrible. See also: Phones, Healthcare, Transportation