In an open market, your statements would be right. But access to the internet is not an open market — it is controlled by a small group of large businesses. i.e.- Verizon, Comcast, and so-on. “Consumer choice” has no bearing here, because the cost of entering this market is too high.

Compare, for example, with hamburger stands. In such a business, there’s no need for the government to regulate where they are located, or who can buy the bigger burgers, and who can buy the smaller burgers, because it’s so simple to make burgers. Anyone can open a burger shack with a few grand, and consumers have enough choices to make it a truly free-market.

In the world of internet access, however, the entire access system is owned by the companies who built and now maintain the backbone and “last-mile” connection to the internet. A very small group of companies own the entire system, from the line in/out of your house, all the way to the fiber-optics that run from one continent to another. There is no way for a new player to enter the market because the cost to do so would be prohibitively high, and would not create any benefit for the new company. Costs would outweigh any potential gain. You’d have to wire the entire country to create access for the population. Then you’d have to build concurrent backbones for the world.

As such, the large corporations that own the system know that they hold the power in this equation. No one else is going to interrupt their network, and they can effectively charge as much as they want, or “tier” access to the internet in any way they want, because no one can really stop them.

Thus, government regulation is necessary to prevent corporations from exploiting their advantage and keeping the market fair.

This is all highly documented and well understood by people who have even an entry-level understanding of economics. Utilities (which the internet, effectively, is) are all regulated by the government to ensure fairness for the consumer. Geographic/political entities (towns, counties, states, etc.) have very specific regulations about how utilities can build and provide service. They may stipulate, for example, that a cable company wire and entire area, instead of only areas that their studies show will yield high profits. Would you argue that such legislation denies consumer choice? Do you really think that the feeble protests of a group of under-served citizens would be enough to bring a utility company in line if they decided that it was in their best interest to do only what is profitable to them? When there is no consumer choice, the free-market falls apart.

Come back when you’ve read up on how the free market works. Then we can have a real discussion. Until then, you’re just a mouthpiece for corporate interests looking to exploit people like you who have a fear of the government, and a subpar understanding of economics.