I work for the government, and I know we loose money buying things because we have procedures to go through for accounting later. When you get the government involved, costs go up. That being said, Michael is right about the symptom vs. the disease. ISP's would prefer to upgrade the infrastructure of large cities than getting internet out to rural areas because the return investment is greater. This leads to massive differentials in computer knowledge between urban vs. rural Americans, keeping the poor people down. There are government subsidies to get broadband out to these areas, but it's a slow process (because it's government).
What confuses me is the term "Net Neutrality." I though that meant "Anonymous on the internet" - Like what I post on the internet via an email-based login can't be traced back to me. Now I am learning it means something else, not quite so bad. I thought Obama's definition of "Net Neutrality" wanted to make us all accountable to eliminate internet fraud. Now it's being used in regards to this Google-Verizon thing in a completely different context.
I do packet shaping on my network to prioritize VoIP. What the problem with an ISP doing it?
By the way, what's wrong with Google (designer of Android OS) and Verizon (maker of cell phones) pairing up to make a cell phone. That's logical... It's like Microsoft and Amazon teaming up to make an audiobook player.