Is the internet an essential service? If so, should the government regulate internet service prices? This past January, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that internet access was a “fundamental right” as New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) went into effect. This law requires that internet service providers (ISPs) in the state provide low-cost internet access to qualifying low-income households. ISPs argued that the ABA would increase demand on their networks and raise their expenditures, while the low state-set prices would not provide them with the necessary money to cover these additional costs. According to these ISPs, this will lower internet speeds for all state residents, regardless of whether they have internet access through the ABA or under an ordinary internet plan. A California legislator recently introduced a similar bill in her state. She argued that families need to access the internet for education, telehealth, employment opportunities, and more.

Comcast is the largest internet provider and often the sole provider in many areas of the United States. Without competition, Comcast has postponed upgrading its internet infrastructure in these uncontested regions, leaving millions of Americans with DSL internet that is too slow for subscribers to engage meaningfully in an increasingly digital world. Along with slow internet speeds, the lack of competition has allowed Comcast to adopt predatory pricing practices, further marginalizing some of the most vulnerable communities. To address these issues, what if a city or state took ownership of Comcast’s physical infrastructure, such as cables and service equipment, and allowed other service providers to sell to their residents, fostering competition? The idea of government-run physical network infrastructure, with competitive services run atop it, is not unknown.