That's really the key problem here. There is lack of choice in the US and Canada. Everyone loves to drum their chest about capitalism but in this case it isn't working, and ISPs have clearly colluded to divvy up the territories so they aren't directly competing.
The internet has become a public utility just like electricity, water, or the roads. Businesses and private citizens depend on it day to day, and economic growth is hampered by poor performance in this area (e.g. new types of businesses that depend on bandwidth, like a Netflix competitor, cannot exist if the pipes are slow).
In my view the raw cable and fibre should be confiscated from the big three by the government using eminent domain, and then rented out to competing ISPs (including the big three) on even footing. The rent would pay to maintain the cables/fibre and deploy more network, and the ISPs could add a premium before reselling it to end users to cover support costs and maintaining equipment (e.g. routers, edge connections, etc).
Basically make the final mile public property. It would make real competition as smaller ISPs can now compete with large ones, and there isn't regularly problems for these companies (e.g. getting permits to place new cables).
Capitalism as ideally defined is a period an economy often passes through extremely briefly; one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired.
Unless you would like to argue that no true Scotsman would ever abuse a position to make a buck...
>one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired.
The prerequisite to purchasing government actions is the government having the power/authority to take action. There's a reason lobbyists do not approach you or me.
The prerequisite to purchasing government actions instead of purchasing mercenaries to enforce ones' will directly is the government having the power/authority to take action.
Getting rid of government doesn't change the ability for the powerful to use money to apply coercive force against the powerless. You know that, right? It just means they have to do it themselves. Would you rather $EVIL_CORP own a Senator or own weapons of mass destruction?
The definition of government is a monopoly on violence/force. Furthermore, no monopoly can be sustained without the force of government.
Absent the government I'm not even certain there would be weapons of mass destruction. It is the state who demands these weapons to maintain its monopoly on force.
A business, on the other hand, is interested in making a profit. Absent government coercion, a business must provide a worthwhile good/service to make a profit, all while competing in the marketplace.
Anything an "$EVIL_CORP" might do pales in comparison to actions we know governments have done. One must only tally up the hundreds of millions of lives lost during the 20th century in senseless wars, democide, etc.
Capitalism is the free and willing exchange of goods.
Because the state has colluded with certain companies to remove the 'free' from the above statement, the US internet is no longer a capitalistic system.
Your statement about all capitalism eventual collapsing to fascism deserves more evidence. If you could truly prove your point, you'd win a nobel prize.
In SF, WebPass (and MonkeyBrains, from what I hear) are great alternative ISPs. Both do point-to-point wireless. My building shares a symmetric 100Mbps connection to WebPass, and I pretty reliably see 30-40Mbps on my wired network. And I pay significantly less than I had previously paid Comcast. (However, I never used the TV component of my Comcast offer, so the cost structure is presumably different for people who do want cable TV.)
I understand that point-to-point wireless is more realistic in an urban environment than in the suburbs or a more rural setting. Do other cities have good alternate ISPs, or are SF residents somewhat unique in their appetite to try alternate providers?
Point-to-Point (Fixed) Wireless is actually also an attractive solution in rural / semi-rural settings as well.
If the distances are moderate (with line-of-sight) but demand is too sparse to warrant the cost of running coaxial / fiber (and distances are too far for DSL), a common alternative on the high end is fixed microwave, and on the low end Verizon LTE.
A good example is the Ames, Iowa area, where an ISP has set up a tower with good line of sight, and a bunch of directional antennas both on the tower and at customers locations. This setup provides great service out to ~15 miles or so, enough to cover the outskirts of this small town.
Some issues with this setup: storms cause 'rain fade' which blocks the signal, and the wireless spectrum does not scale to too many users. Also, there's a finicky antenna on the roof that can become misaligned in storms.
