Of course I have.
And I don’t mean to come across as argumentative.
I haven’t worked in the cable business for twenty years, but it still gets my goat up when people pull the monopoly card on me. There are plenty of places to get access and content. Some cost more, others less and there are quality issues across the board.
There is no need to regulate something that was built with private funds.
What does "plenty" mean? I live in a large metropolitan area with about 9.4 million other people.
If I want "Cable TV" I have two choices: Comcast or Satellite TV. That's not plenty of choices and both frankly speaking, suck...
If I want content, my choices are Over-The-Air TV (which is what I use, I watch very little TV) or I have to purchase a high speed Internet package to stream content from something like Netflix, Hulu, etc..
I live in a fairly financially affluent area, there are no video stores, no Red Box's or anything else. It's not like I live in poor part of rural America with few to no choices, I live in a pretty affluent area and still have few choices. I honestly would like more choices - the debate is on how to get them.
I'm far from a fan of regulation (I believe the Government's role is to provide for the common defense and get the hell out of the way otherwise) and I damn' sure do recognize Government created this problem --- which a handful of very large corporations are now exploiting for their own benefit at the expense of the consumer.
I don't know the answer here, I just don't like the two answers that keep coming up as both put we the consumers between a rock and a hard place. Of the two bad choices, net neutrality seems (to me .... ) to be the least offensive of the two. Not to say I like that choice.
There is no need to regulate something that was built with private funds.
Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and the rest get more tax subsidies than you and I can probably shake a stick at. They didn't build that infrastructure entirely with private funds.