I'm really glad you pointed out that logic for me. I almost could not have made the assumption on my own. I would encourage you to study the topic of broadband penetration and network neutrality just a little bit more. It's a little embarrassing that you're participating in this discussion and approach it with such a watered-down argument like that.
As for a little background. I lived 50 miles outside of DC. On a good day, from there, you could practically see the capital. No broadband. I was informed by the local county government that the cable operator given the franchise contract was technically required to serve my area but opted instead of doing so to pay a small fine each year in order to skip us. The franchise contract renegotiation was only done every 15 years. This likely meant no broadband for us until 2015.
The frustrating part was that we could see the places that were served easily from our house. I could just about throw a rock and reach it.
Finally we rented another building nearby to use as an office and set up a radio link between the two to bring the broadband in. (About 9 miles)
Now I'm sure there are plenty of high minded, well thought out arguments on both sides of the net neutrality issue, and the studies on broadband penetration in the US are surely more than enlightening; But I had to crawl onto my roof in the freezing cold with a yagi and a telescope to get broadband just 50 miles from the nations capital.
Does this seem right to you?
In other words, govt agreed on your behalf to ensure that you wouldn't have broadband and you think that govt will fix that problem?
Governemnt is partly causing this problem. I'd like them to stop. This will require some action on their part.
I humbly submit that you've never lived in a place where broadband was available across the street and the telco/cable operator refused to bring it to your house. We have a problem. Here's hoping Obama has a solution. I've heard many politicians promise... this guy is the first one I'm inclined to believe.