Our copper infrastructure is under a lot more price regulation. Verizon, one of the main opponents of net neutrality, had no incentive to build up their existing copper network to support faster DSL, the way Korean telcos did, because they would not have been able to reap the financial benefits of doing so. "Renzatic Virtual Carrier" or anyone else could have demanded access to the last mile connection at rates that wouldn't justify the investment (since DSL operates best over short distances). Hence the reason that they, AT&T, and others invested in fiber optic. Those networks, up to now, have been exempt from the Title II regulations.
Our fiber optic networks are just as fast as in any other country. However, they aren't as widespread since the telcos had to start from scratch, and had a lot more territory to cover than, say Korean companies.
I'll concede this point to you. It is much more difficult, expensive task to roll out a widespread network that's as efficient and speedy as what South Korea enjoys because we're a much larger, less urbanized country. Quite simply, it's too large a task for any one company to tackle. If you take away the draw of potential profits, no one will even try.
And this next point, which is very much the truth...
The other disincentive has been state and local governments striking essentially monopoly deals with telcos to freeze out competition. What's needed is more competition by getting rid of these sweetheart deals, rather than more regulation. The problem with highly regulated entities is that they have little incentive but to meet the bare minimum the regulators require.
This is the root issue right here. If there were better competition among ISPs, we wouldn't
need the government to step in and play consumer advocate.
As some people here are wont to say, businesses exist for one reason, and one reason only: to make money. It's true. In most healthy markets, businesses make money by catering to your needs. It's a win/win situation for all parties involved. The business gets paid, and you get the service or goods you paid for.
But in instances where a single business has control of a popular or necessary service, they have no driving need to offer you your money's worth. We, as a society, have become dependent on the internet, and entrenched companies like Comcast know this. They have no incentive to offer you the most bang for your buck, because they know they're getting your money regardless. Instead of being their customer, you're now their commodity. One that can be taken advantage of.
And it's because of this that we need mandates like Net Neutrality to protect consumer interests.
