The more I think about it, the more I want government to step in and nationalise/regulate internet service, like they did with electricity.
Internet access has become commoditized enough that there isn't much innovation in it's distribution, and it is so necessary for modern businesses that it makes economic sense.
I could not agree more for this specific case. Really wish Internet was just another utility that we paid for and not worry about the monopoly these ISPs have specially in some remote areas.
Remote areas? I had remarkably little choice in New York City. I lived in Brooklyn and had Optimum Online. I was happy with it, but then moved to Queens and now I had to switch to RCN, because they were in my building and Optimum wasn't. Moved to Manhattan, and had to get TWC, until FiOS was installed in the building.
You probably had a choice to opt out. I must pay $50/month to Comcast for TV service in my apartment in the DC suburbs, whether I use it or not (and I don't). I then pay them $80 more for Internet. The only other option is wireless.
I hear you. I used to live in NYC (queens) a long time ago and remember the only option in our building was TWC. But when I say remote area, I mean the entire area. We only have comcast or nothing. So now I am forced to pay for the "bundle" of TV and Internet even though all I want is Internet. Yes I called them to only get Internet and even then, you have to pay for the basic cable package. Leave it or take it.
There is some parallel, but ISPs are not commoditized like electricity utilities are. Once consumer-level data is pretty even across the board and companies are only competing for lock-in and price, those kinds of regulations make much more sense.
In other words, let's wait until use cases like uploading multiple HD video streams are trivial before we freeze the current technical expectations and business models.
Why would regulation freeze technical expectations? IP transit pretty much boils down to cables and switches. A regulatory model that mandates specific speeds could probably even specify allowed tariffs. In theory it should be fine. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of "business models" for such a simple thing as transit. Most of those models are just trying to find breakage so you can market services you hopefully don't have to deliver.
The real problem is, like the telephone network, you end up getting all sorts of little exceptions and silly tariffs and they don't get updated and it turns into an idiotic mess.
But in theory, mandating target coverage and speeds should work just fine. Just like the phone network, if the FCC decides to actually get involved and fine people, companies will take things seriously (for the most part...).
I don't think transit is an apt analog to data provider services. I also don't think transit is regulated to the degree that you would like to regulate data.
We don't have omnibus shipping/commuting/travelling utilities, and many of the constituent parts of this hypothetical megautility (USPS, AmTrak) are money pits that fail to adapt to the changing needs of the population. In other words, I don't think transit is a commodity either.
Electricity, water, garbage, sewage... those are commodity utilities, for the most part. I would also mention phones, but landlines are quickly becoming redundant, which underscores my point if anything.
It's the most basic and fundamental service provided by an ISP, and should be the only service ISPs can provide, to prevent the conflicts of interest that make net neutrality regulations a necessity. When ISPs are an endpoint for traffic rather than just a conduit for it, they have a financial incentive to try to force their customers to use their content services over external content providers.
Internet access has become commoditized enough that there isn't much innovation in it's distribution, and it is so necessary for modern businesses that it makes economic sense.