Oh, I also intended to comment on this claim: "That piece is offered by (at most) a duopoly in the U.S. -- large cable and phone companies who aren't competing very hard." This is not correct, at least under the definition of "broadband" being used in proposed net neutrality legislation. At my blog I posted a list of options for broadband in the metropolitan Phoenix area that I can get at or near my home (and I didn't count all of the business options that I can bring to my home over Qwest last-mile circuits, including T1s from a variety of ISPs): Qwest DSL, Covad DSL (a business option over Qwest copper), Cox cable, Sprint Broadband (residential wireless point-to-point), Sprint EVDO, Verizon EVDO, Alltel EVDO, HughesNet satellite, and City of Tempe metro wireless (doesn't actually reach my home since I'm a few miles west of the Tempe border, but I'm frequently in Tempe so it's a service I could use). The City of Chandler also plans to build a municipal wireless network. So your "at most" qualification is incorrect. My list has been quibbled with by Douglas Ross on the grounds that most of these don't count as broadband for some reason for another (in fact he really wants to dismiss anything short of fiber to the home, a standard by which there are *no* broadband options in Phoenix), which I find disingenuous given that they meet the definition in the net neutrality legislation. (P.S., my previous comment got through because I changed the "contact URL" to point to something other than my blog, which is at lippard.blogspot.com.)