I think we still have some cultural inertia such that things like high-speed internet and cell service are seen as luxuries and not basic infrastructure (plus some who believe that the poor ought to be excluded from using basic infrastructure anyway). I'm also not convinced that Capitol Hill has fully realized that Comcast isn't competing with rabbit ears anymore.
Since we invitably have legislatures heavily influence (and sometimes fully captured) by moneyed interests, often the best we can hope for is competition between the different factions of moneyed interests to shape policy such that the outcome is triangulated to be somewhat more beneficial to the public than if one faction had unchecked influence. Until the last 20 years or so, the media and telecoms industry were separate factions that had some competing interests and sometimes served as a checked on one another. Now they're merged/merging into media telecoms conglomerates, but the tech industry has recently risen as a competitor with even more directly competing interests.
It'll be interesting to see how the lobbyist wrangling behind the scenes works out. The tech industry is the new kid on the block, especially in terms of their presence in Washington DC, and it takes time to build up relationships and influence in politics. It's not quite as quickly scalable as the tech industry is used to, but they also have vastly more resources.
> high-speed internet and cell service are seen as luxuries and not basic infrastructure
I would never want to live without high-speed mobile Internet (which can provide the equivalent of cell service), but is it really a necessity to live? I was a boy before cell phones even existed, and anyone outside academia and a few tech companies had the Internet, and life was fine.
It's certainly extremely convenient, but I don't think it's a necessity.
> plus some who believe that the poor ought to be excluded from using basic infrastructure anyway
Even more previous generations' people would make the same argument: "Is telephone really a necessity? We lived without telephones and we were fine, our life was fine" and so on. Replace telephone with telegram or a car for even earlier generations.
Now the problem with this argument is that we're not living in that generation. We're living in the present generation, where a decent, if not high speed internet is absolutely essential in order to progress. Can you still live without internet in the present generation? Sure. But is there a remote chance that such life would be comfortable and painless? Absolutely not. Not even a chance.
I hear you but you can counter-claim it easily for high-speed Internet for business. Just look at how critical the Internet is to all kinds of firms these days. Even those that mostly don't need the Internet often have an expensive, leased line for main HQ. There's also the meme of traveling salespeople and such who benefit from higher speeds.
So, with so much dependence, it stands to reason a country's businesses can be a bit more competitive and efficient if they have high-speed, low-cost Internet. The Internet part is necessary for most even if other attributes aren't. They're certainly useful, though, as they increase capabilities and profit simultaneously.
