[JChase2]

I mean, there's a pretty big difference between not being able to access high speed internet except through something that's subject to financial or other sorts of manipulation, and not being able to post whatever you want on facebook or use google or whatever. Facebook isn't really something I need, plus I can use any number of alternative search engines and email providers.

I can't just ignore the two or so providers of internet in my area and switch to dial up or whatever because I pretty much need high speed dependable internet for work. I think that's a pretty big difference there.

[mrlatinos]

You depend on a company for a product/service that they provide. Therefore, you can dictate the terms of how they provide it?

[dv_dt]

For a utility like water or gas for which there is only a monopoly company providing it then yes, there are basic standards set by law because society recognizes the economic inefficiency of putting in duplicative physical infrastructure into that last-mile of linkage, as well as the economic difficulty of maintaining non-extractive prices without fundamental competition.

[mrlatinos]

But the internet is not a utility...

[nicoburns]

What makea you say that? I consider the internet a utility. I'm pretty sure the governments of many countries (including the UK where I live) do too.

[dv_dt]

Perhaps it would be useful to differentiate between the internet as a whole, and a last-mile service getting you access to the point where there is a fan-out of many different access options. As a whole, major parts of the internet do not have "utility" constraints, while wired end-point service certainly seems to have significant similarities in my mind.