[Trippynet]

Very similar in the UK jan-jaap. BT were privatised ages ago, and under competition laws they have to allow other providers to provide service over their cabling network. Bespoke cable providers (such as Virgin Media) don't have to do this. Thing is, over here there are dozens of ISPs available so plenty of competition. Also, legislation requires the likes of BT to invest infrastructure in more rural areas. Yes, this may push the price up a bit for those in cities, but it does mean more widespread broadband availability across the country.

The main problem in the US is lack of competition, with many areas only able to get Internet access via one sole provider. This can leave you at the mercy of that ISP. If they don't sign a deal with (for example) Netflix and throttle them heavily as a result, it isn't as if you can always switch to another ISP that does have a deal in place.

[commodorejohn]

Is it all because of the people in rural areas? If you're not OK subsidizing Netflix viewers, are you OK with paying for those in remote locations?

Nah, people in rural areas just get ignored altogether. I have family friends who lived no more than five miles off a major interstate freeway, but in an area which was mostly farmland and backwoods hunting shacks. Until they finally sold the place a couple years ago, they were never able to get the local telco to give them anything more than dial-up (officially rated for 56 Kbps, but they really got more like 38.4,) simply because they didn't want to go to the bother of upgrading their wiring in the area.

[Raion]

Now, I know the geography of the US makes it hard to compare. But I have friends and colleagues who live in large cities in the US and they too pay > $100/month and get less speed and more fine print than I have to put up with. Is it all because of the people in rural areas? If you're not OK subsidizing Netflix viewers, are you OK with paying for those in remote locations?

NB: as far as I know, the "Netflixes" of this world have dedicated equipment with the large® ISPs in order to reduce load on the network.

 I can only speak for myself. I live on the East Coast of the US, which is older, more developed, and even rural areas have okay internet these days. 

I pay $75USD for 100/10 internet. It doesn't particularly bother me, I used to pay $90 in 2017 for a little less. Costs are coming down. 

My broadband provider is relatively regional to the Mid-Atlantic of the US, so I can't speak to the midwest or other "sticks" parts of the US. I'm guessing places like rural AZ or much of the midwest just get dialup or satellite. 

But let me explain regarding those video content providers:

This is true with some bandwidth providers, not ISPs. But it's usually insufficient to avoid link saturation. Because they control their own BGP, they can also control routing, so this overrides much of the ISP routing. This is also how anti-DDOS products like Kentik and ZenEdge work. This means that they control routing to them for their own benefit and the benefit of their customers, and not the most optimal for your ISP. 

Again, the way I frame this as corporate debates and warfare, it has very little to do with us as consumers. 

There are new providers popping up because removing NN laws has reduced the costs to get into broadband providing. 

For me, I don't stream. I don't want to pay for streaming. I don't want to pay for what other people use for their internet, but I also don't want to get a cap or a charge per megabyte because, well, that's not what I pay for. If I did want to stream, I'd have no problem paying extra. I get my media via torrenting, but because that's a rather consistent, and not saturating, form of network traffic, that I encrypt behind a VPN, there's nothing to really see there. 

My argument and logic is that net neutrality is forcing ISPs and customers, through passed on costs, to subsidize corporate, commercial traffic on the web. Yeah, it kinda sucks if you use Hulu, HBO Max and Netflix all at the same time, but you have alternatives to corporate streaming. Kodi, bittorrent, etc. You'll notice that the idea that each individual needs to be self-sufficient and not have their activities subsidized is not a radical idea in the US - outside of fringe groups it's moreorless commonplace believed.