Common Cause has a study dated back to 2005 on the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was more media concentration, less diversity and higher prices.
Without a link and corroborating statistics I'm wary to believe the conclusions immediately, but assuming it's true I wouldn't be surprised if that effect was driven largely by easing restrictions on the former Bell companies, since they have mostly re-merged since then: http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/att_history.gif
As for your troubles with Comcast, you've stated that there is no legislation at the county or state level supporting Comcast as the sole ISP and that federal laws actively reduce barriers to entry, why not start your own ISP? Especially if Comcast provides a horrible service at a high price?
Because the non-regulatory barriers to entry are enormous! The initial capital needed is substantial to say the least just to build a rudimentary network. Then there's the problem of the existing monopoly refusing to allow you to interconnect with them assuming this is a hypothetical unregulated market. That's part of the problem with network monopolies is it is so fantastically expensive to even secure a beachhead that only the largest companies even attempt it.
Here, I've looked up the steps for you....
I've written actual business plans and pitched businesses to actual investors, I know what goes into a business plan. The thing with investors is you have to convince them your plan is not only 1) possible, but 2) very likely to happen, and 3) low risk vs. reward and 4) well within the available investment capital of the investors and 5) a better than any imaginable opportunity costs, so not just a good investment but literally the best use of that investment money among all other options presented to that investor. Breaking into an existing monopoly run by a goliath like Comcast would be either an impossible sell because of 1-3 and especially 4, or practically impossible because of 5. You would need to dumbest motherfucking whale of an angel investor to have a snowball's chance in hell since any pro VC is gonna laugh you out of their office. Banks wouldn't touch you, since banks basically don't lend to startups.
Continuing with your questions, given the results of the 1996 Telecom Act, why do you think the Net Neutrality law will prevent Comcast from abusing their monopoly? We don't have a 'free' market to have an ideological need to preserve, so I'm not sure why this argument keeps coming up. We've never had a free market in written history, only ones that have been freer and ones that have not been freer, rather how much government intervention is there in the market at any given time. Here, in this day and age, what we have is more regulation and slightly less regulation that is then defined as deregulation. And that's on new regulations. "Deregulation" of older policies are never fully put forward, so those with money (preexisting companies, Comcast) can more easily purchase the new licenses than even new companies where at best you end up with crappy service. As for a tangible benefit you might get from opposing Net Neutrality as a form of government intervention is perhaps not having the NSA able to gather info on your web searches? Just one.
Yes, I think Net Neutrality will reduce the abuse from Comcast and large companies like that. It is a benefit to the consumer on the whole. It is not ideal but it is better than the alternative given the nature of the market. Was the NSA unable to spy on us before? I seem to remember something in the news about them doing that despite Net Neutrality not being a law.
