> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half.... We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks.

Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate.

> Please explain how all other utilities and common carriers are effective in the US and able to receive sufficient capital investment to provide reliable service?

They're not. Utility infrastructure in the U.S. barely gets enough investment to keep it operation, much less keep up with technological development: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o....

> https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338

The one-time ARRA money is for jobs programs. The money is distributed to municipalities, and may or may not be used to actually build broadband anywhere.

> Sweden didn't even put 1 billion in.

Sweden putting in $900 million is like the U.S. putting in $27 billion.

> Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate.

Fine, we'll use your definitions. That's cool.

> Sweden putting in $900 million is like the U.S. putting in $27 billion.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/242713/fcc_votes_to_end_telep... "The FCC will cap the broadband fund at US$4.5 billion a year, the current budget of the USF high-cost program, funded by a tax on telephone bills." Over 6 years.

4.5 * 6=27 billion

What is your next objection?

> They're not. Utility infrastructure in the U.S. barely gets enough investment to keep it operation, much less keep up with technological development: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o....

Moving goal posts by switching to publicly owned water infrastructure isn't valid. Privately owned utilities.

Like these: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/indus...

An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exelon

Exelon: ~2.5 billion net on ~55 billion assets Comcast: ~6.8 billion net on ~158 billion assets

And like any other market, Exelon isn't having trouble turning a profit from regulation but is losing money due to its own fuckups for failing to accurately predict what forms of energy are cheapest: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-09/business/ct-ex...

I'm sorry, but we just have to agree to disagree. Or are you planning to change goalposts?

> Fine, we'll use your definitions. That's cool.

Under your definition, Apple received an $18 billion subsidy between 2009-2011. What did the public get in return for that subsidy? Is that a dumb question? Yes, because your definition of subsidy makes no sense.

> http://www.pcworld.com/article/242713/fcc_votes_to_end_telep.... "The FCC will cap the broadband fund at US$4.5 billion a year, the current budget of the USF high-cost program, funded by a tax on telephone bills." Over 6 years.

USF is not a subsidy to the telecom industry, because it is funded by a tax on the industry. It just shifts money from certain telecom customers to others.

> And like any other market, Exelon isn't having trouble turning a profit from regulation

Excelon is a terrible example of utilities turning a profit, because it really isn't one. When the energy industry was deregulated, the regulated electric monopoly in Illinois, Commonwealth Edison, divested itself of its generation capacity. This entity became Excelon, and it is not regulated S a public utility the way ComEd is.