By the nature of the internet, it requires an actual medium over which it is delivered. Even in wireless transmission setups (4g, Satilite), there is a large amount of infrastructure involved, and wired backhaul is still in play. Someone will own and maintain this equipment. And due to high initial costs with long repayment periods, overbuilding (two or more networks in the same area) is disincentivized. This effect creates what is known as a ‘natural monopoly’, where market forces discourage competitive operation. In general, infrastructure tends to lead toward that situation. Even in areas once competitive, competition is often killed off. I saw it with DSL Backhaul in San Jose. AT&T bought it all up, sold it to SBC Global, who was one of potentially 2 providers in the area at one point, because of the time to recoup investments in a competitive market.

As such, if left to its own design, broadband would likely devolve into regional monopolies, where the infrastructure is owned solely by the company who sells you service, Its almost already there. Even then, it takes a surprising amount of law/regulation to handle public land, private Property, and right of way use without dispute, but we will ignore those concerns for now. Because of the control over the ‘last-mile’ connection, broadband monopolies are able to charge far more, provide worse service, and engage in anti-consumer practices. Much like we have to fight governmental abuse, we also have to address corporate abuse that negatively impacts consumers. Because Corporations are big, and consumers are small, we attempt to address the incentives for greed and quick profit via regulation. Like laws written by congress, regulations can be good or bad even within the constraints provided by congress. Good regulations include many food handling laws, while bad regulations include requiring a monastery to be a licensed funeral home to sell handmade caskets. Thats why the details of the NN order matter.

In the end, we don’t know the answer to how much is the right amount question. Its not a question that has one easy answer. You have to actually look at the regulation and gasp think about what the regulation wants to do, what it does, how it does it, and decide both if it accomplishes its goal and if there was an easier way to do it. The first NN order was the ‘easier’ way, but failed because Title I did not provide that authority. But the 2015 NN order id have that authority and barred the monopolies from some massive abuses of that power, abuses that had already occurred, while forbearing most of Title II, providing them little to twist into protectionist measures. It was carefully crafted. That is why I supported it. Ajit Pai’s order instead was so poorly crafted, in it’s attempts to prevent the FCC from being able to do anything to prevent abuse, it might have actually prevented the FCC from doing what they wanted it to do, prevent states from stepping in. It fails on every level to accomplish its objectives long term, and went so far beyond minimal that it rewrote the telecommunications act.