I only have two: Brighthouse (basically TimeWarner) or AT&T Uverse. In the US, most broadband companies are issued local monopolies or duopolies on service, so there's little or no competition.

As 'dublinben points out, the granting of exclusive cable franchises has been illegal under federal law since 1992.

So why is there so little competition? Because municipalities make it unattractive for companies to compete. American cities are totally dysfunctional when it comes to socioeconomic conflict, and it plays out in a way where building infrastructure becomes a huge political battle: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140.... If you want to bill fiber in New York City, you can't just operate like a regular business, targeting the most profitable customers. You have to play in this insane socioeconomic battleground with a civil rights lawyer breathing down your neck turning a simple business into an economic justice issue. Or you go into San Francisco, and your fiber upgrade gets stymied because people don't like how the boxes look: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/judge-orders-att-halt-u-ver....

We already have a tremendous amount of socioeconomic problems when it comes to housing; only those who are privileged enough to be able to afford housing near good schools, good communities can get good education and a stable/safe life, etc., why let the internet be a repeat of this? I say good on those cities trying to make things fair. It might make the difference of the next Zuck being from a middle-class household who in fact has the same speed and experience on the internet as everyone, rather than another privileged Harvard-educated brat who has the familiarity with the new and the fast, who is better able to see the frontier of internet technologies and is thus able to innovate without as many obstructions.

The current way, the rich are in some way subsidizing fast internet for the poor, and telecom companies are deprived of high profits. That is excellent.

Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin. Shareholders will do things like encourage Verizon to sell off all its wireline assets to get rid of less-profitable business lines and unionized workforces: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz....

As for cross-subsidization, it's bad because it obscures the trade-offs that are being made. I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill.

> I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill.

But you know it as well as I do that that's not happening. I had to hear it from my grandma, Rush Limbaugh, and about 4 or 5 neighbors on my street about Sandra Fluke having the nerve to suggest contraceptive drugs be included as part of healthcare - can you imagine the kind of outrage you'd see at the idea of people's internet being put on your tax bill? That's never happening, it's not a politically viable solution, full stop. Heck, I know even very smart and educated people who like to regard the internet as a waste of time with nothing of worth.

> Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin.

You're very correct there. Personally, I'm convinced that Facebook is a house of cards that will soon fall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) and I hope and pray that it does so very soon. And that it'll take down a lot of others too, with it. I have no good answers here, I just people were a little more assertive in spewing away anything with the FB logo. Let's hope all of this advertising model is a passing phase and we get over it.

You're certainly entitled to that point of view but then you have no right to complain that the companies in question aren't investing as much in infrastructure as you'd like them to.

Exclusive cable franchises have been illegal since 1992. [1]

Cable companies choose not to compete against each other in order to keep their profit margins high. It's unofficial collusion between all the major players.

[1] http://www.mackinac.org/10118

Or a natural monopoly.

Because corrupt regulators.