I just look at my Romanian friends. Basically they have 10x more internet speed at 10x less price, just so, despite living in a much poorer country. The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. This is just one of many examples where you see such patterns. Just because my comments fit a narrative doesn't mean I cannot back them up, or they serve special interests of mine.
Alternative explanation: Romania is a comparatively teeny tiny country so the necessary infrastructure costs are a fraction of what they would be here.
Or: see the UK and Netherlands, where government regulation improved service by forcing more competition in the broadband market [1], i.e. exactly the opposite of your "regulated to death" claim.
In all three of those examples, increased competition seems to have been the real explanation for reduced prices and improved service, not deregulation as you claim.
That doesn't mean the same will happen if you deregulate the US. Most ISPs are already monopolies. Where would the competitors come from?
ISPs in countries like Romania blossomed because many small providers were able to compete with each other from the outset. In the US, the initially fragmented market (the "Baby Bells" etc.) have congealed into just a few major players that have no incentive to compete.
the same World Bank study that applauded Romania’s well-connected cities cautioned about a digital divide. A much larger share of Romanians have ultra-fast internet connections compared to other European countries, yet one-third of the country’s population has never used the internet. Half of all households have no broadband connection—half of households don’t even have a computer, for that matter.
