A duopoly might help in America but for the rest of us (at least where I'm from) competition is working fine. I can choose between around 5 different providers for internet and/or TV with prices starting at as little as $35 per month for unlimited internet at around 20mbps download speed. I can also choose online between Netflix, Amazon/LoveFilm, free demand services such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD, and paid on demand services that come with certain TV packages (SKY on demand). In the UK competition in this space has never looked better in my opinion. It always amazes me that America, the champion of the free market, has such a fucked up telecoms (and by extension TV) industry.

If you're in the UK, Zen Internet now offer £25/month truly unlimited fibre broadband. ~80mbps down, ~20mbps up, no traffic shaping / AUP or anything. I am so happy with my internet right now.

Thanks for the tip - looks like fibre isn't available in my area yet though.

Yeah, it's ridiculous, even to this American.

The best way I can explain it is that it's putting the accent more on "free" than on "market", and it's a 14-year-old's definition of free: "You can't make me do anything! YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!"

However, I worry that the more accurate explanation is that it is a neofeudal structure cloaked in free-market terms.

The $35 includes most calls (all local and ten most-called/chosen national and mobile numbers are free on my package from the last three providers) and line rental. Add another $15 for TV licence.

The competition here is from Local Loop Unbundling [1], where the non-ISP part of BT, BT Openreach, works on the exchanges and cabinets. Rollout stats [2], compare Scotland and London for the rural/city development. There's up to 9 choices in London, I would expect iPlayer would work on all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_Kingdom#... https://www.samknows.com/broadband/statistics/regional