OR, (and I know this is near heresy) you force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure regardless of whether it is fair to that operator.

This isn't a schoolyard playground. We don't have to play fair and treat these megacorporation with kid gloves. When the shoe is on the other foot, corporations don't play fair with us. "Fair" doesn't even come into the picture when they are in the conference room deciding their prices and terms. So why should the government treat them fairly when it comes to a regulatory solution?

“Fair” as in “on the same terms that their own retail unit gets”, without any terms that would be anticompetitive.

And no cross subsidisation.

(I meant “fair to competitors”, but I think you thought I meant “fair to the infrastructure owner”.)

In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it.

> In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it.

Actually many places offer choice between cable and DSL variants. But once there is fiber in the ground it actually doesn't make much sense to go with anything else, so choices disappear (only for connection type, not ISP). With fiber it's much cheaper to provide high speed access (and there is a much clearer update path).