> I don't see how a normally libertarian-leaning group of people have embraced regulation rather than deregulation as to this issue.
Presumably because there is a difference between "libertarian-leaning" (to the extent that is an accurate description of the group described) and "having a blind, kneejerk preference for deregulation".
> Why do local ISP markets tend towards monopoly, even though it has been illegal since 1992 to grant local cable monopolies?
Because incumbents that got infrastructure built with government support in acquiring property for infrastructure as monopolies have an insurmountable advantage as a result of the access they acquired then, and effectively leveraged that cable infrastructure to internet infrastructure, whereas without direct government support that comes with that, its pretty much impossible for anyone else to build the necessary infrastructure because property rights.
> You can have: neutrality, universal access, or a mostly privately-funded telecom infrastructure, but you only get to pick two.
Okay.
> you have to be willing to publicly subsidize the construction of telecom infrastructure.
There are extensive public subsidies that have been given in the US for telecom -- and specifically broadband -- infrastructure [1]. So can we have our neutrality and universal access already?
>There are extensive public subsidies that have been given in the US for telecom -- and specifically broadband -- infrastructure [1]. So can we have our neutrality and universal access already?
Where do you live that you do not have universal access and net neutrality?
Presumably because there is a difference between "libertarian-leaning" (to the extent that is an accurate description of the group described) and "having a blind, kneejerk preference for deregulation".
> Why do local ISP markets tend towards monopoly, even though it has been illegal since 1992 to grant local cable monopolies?
Because incumbents that got infrastructure built with government support in acquiring property for infrastructure as monopolies have an insurmountable advantage as a result of the access they acquired then, and effectively leveraged that cable infrastructure to internet infrastructure, whereas without direct government support that comes with that, its pretty much impossible for anyone else to build the necessary infrastructure because property rights.
> You can have: neutrality, universal access, or a mostly privately-funded telecom infrastructure, but you only get to pick two.
Okay.
> you have to be willing to publicly subsidize the construction of telecom infrastructure.
There are extensive public subsidies that have been given in the US for telecom -- and specifically broadband -- infrastructure [1]. So can we have our neutrality and universal access already?
[1] E.g., http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/infrastructure