Agreed totally, except for the order of what should happen. The monopolies, which are usually granted by agreements with local governments, should end first.
How do you propose to distribute access to fiber networks laid in public land, then? Are the new competitors in these markets going to make individual contracts with every property owner they come in contact with, too?
I don't know .. that's something to be debated, however it does impinge on my individual freedom if my government decides who can wire what to my house. I did not personally agree to grant any corporation such a right.
Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.
It's something that has been debated. Do you think telecoms and utilities sprang into existence fully-formed world-wide the day you were born? These issues are not new, they date back centuries.
I don't. Neither, I'd wager, does djur, who you initially replied to. You should read his other posts in this thread.
He and I are both speaking of the practical problems of the mentality that governments shouldn't be involved at all, not arguing that telecom monopolies are a good thing.
You can't have a practical system of utilities of any sort without government involvement. That doesn't mean you have to have government-granted monopolies to nominally private companies. There are other options, like having the core utilities (e.g. fiber) be a public utility to begin with.
