Believe it or not, I don know a thing or two about this stuff. One of my job responsibilities right now is to provide data access to remote testing sites around the world, using an odd protocol that our hardware requires, a protocol that some providers don't want to deal with. I'm not whining about common carrier BS, I'm shopping around for the provider that will deliver what my company needs for the lowest price. We've already had to rule out a few options because they were squirrely about guaranteeing us that we could run our particular protocol now and into the future.
And I can find multiple service provider options in middle of nowhere Arizona, Spain, Italy, and India. So I'm not giving much credence to the notion that there's always a monopoly on service.
Now, RevDisk, you seem to be advocating that we build new bad law because the existing bad law doesn't work well, basically saying that two wrongs make a right. If telecom companies are being bad about not growing their infrastructure the way they're supposed to, then force them to grow their infrastructure. Don't limit the kinds of service plans they can sell to willing customers under the guise of common carrier nonsense.
And if it's just a matter of you guys re-designing Comcast's systems, then get to it. If it's as easy as you say, then it shouldn't take you long. I suspect there's more to it than that, though. And not merely "they're being bad and mean".
Chris, tell me why anyone should be forced to grant you access to any particular website or internet protocol against their will. Really, I'd like to know. There are some providers I'd love to force to carry my protocol. I'd save my company bajillions and be a hero for a while.