Or properly regulate local loop unbundling and force cost+ resale of access to subscriber lines.
E.g. the way it works in the UK (it works similarly, but not entirely identically, in all EU countries), which is absolutely not ideal but gives reasonable competition is that BT OpenReach (by virtue of BT's past monopoly) is regulated and is required to offer any ISP access to their network on equal basis. This means the ISPs have a few choices:
* They can put equipment in the exchanges, and "just" get access to a raw connection to the subscriber. OpenReach maintains the lines.
* They can contract OpenReach for "backhaul" of IP traffic to central locations.
* They can build their own last mile network.
I can pick from dozens of providers because of that, but most of them mean I'll pay a basic line rental either directly to BT or via the provider, and that is the same for any of them. Others are free to build their own network without the same restrictions, but this for natural reasons happens very slowly (predominantly fibre providers in dense urban areas, and a cable provider).
In that model net neutrality is less of a concern. It's not entirely free of issues, as major ISPs certainly still could offer preferential access to certain content, but at least we have real competition beyond the last mile.
The biggest problem with this is that the way it is structured does not give BT a strong incentive to invest in improving the last mile network. I'd have preferred if there was an additional clause restricting them to only take out dividends from OpenReach proportional to the investments made in improving the network. But overall it's working reasonably well.
We'd need another Teddy Roosevelt for that to happen. Unfortunately, we have Trump. And frankly I don't see politics changing from that mindset for a long time.
The Ma Bell breakup was probably started under Nixon/Ford (lawsuit filed in 1974) and finished under Reagan.
Not that it worked completely, because everyone has nearly merged back together, but it is evidence that Republican administrations aren't necessarily pro-monopoly.
A large part of the issue is that, through lobbying and franchise agreements, ISPs have locally secured their status. Even if you break them up they only become more local monopolies (which is better but not competition and still requires regulation).
E.g. the way it works in the UK (it works similarly, but not entirely identically, in all EU countries), which is absolutely not ideal but gives reasonable competition is that BT OpenReach (by virtue of BT's past monopoly) is regulated and is required to offer any ISP access to their network on equal basis. This means the ISPs have a few choices:
* They can put equipment in the exchanges, and "just" get access to a raw connection to the subscriber. OpenReach maintains the lines.
* They can contract OpenReach for "backhaul" of IP traffic to central locations.
* They can build their own last mile network.
I can pick from dozens of providers because of that, but most of them mean I'll pay a basic line rental either directly to BT or via the provider, and that is the same for any of them. Others are free to build their own network without the same restrictions, but this for natural reasons happens very slowly (predominantly fibre providers in dense urban areas, and a cable provider).
In that model net neutrality is less of a concern. It's not entirely free of issues, as major ISPs certainly still could offer preferential access to certain content, but at least we have real competition beyond the last mile.
The biggest problem with this is that the way it is structured does not give BT a strong incentive to invest in improving the last mile network. I'd have preferred if there was an additional clause restricting them to only take out dividends from OpenReach proportional to the investments made in improving the network. But overall it's working reasonably well.