I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them :-)
Ah, so it seems we are, in fact, in partial agreement. Unfortunately the Cable-cos choose not to ignore 4G/Wireless when it comes to choices.
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL.
That seems to be a rarity, but that does explain why some of my wholesale pricing comes through as BH/TWC, and proves what I've said in various diatribes elsewhere on the web that even on DOCSIS, infrastructure sharing is possible, despite the cable cos (probably including Time Warner but I haven't checked) saying that sharing is not.
AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're expanding incredibly rapidly.
Verizon's FIOS growth has, as far as I understand, stalled. Some of it has even been sold off to (bleargh) Frontier.
Google is stalled in some areas, and despite it now being "available" in subsets of 3 cities and all the expansion plans, it's all very nice and well for the populus that lives within reach, but that doesn't include about 99% of the country. I admire what they're doing very much and want them to expand fast, but they'll need a lot of help. I personally would like to see them enter as a retailer on some of the already-existing municipal fiber that's already up and running all over the country. They don't *have* to build or buy all the infrastructure, do they? Just let the municipalities sell them L2 or L3 access and be done. THAT will scare the pants off the incumbents.
AT&T seems to be doing a lot of FTT-PR (and then back-and-forthing with "we will", "we won't", "actually we will").
The latter 2 do at least seem to be growing (excellent), however, while Google's growth rates might look impressive (let's say for the sake of argument 50% year on year or whatever they might be) compared to AT&T's (say 2%), AT&T's *ACTUAL* growth rates would be far more impressive: as we know, 50% of 10k is far less than 2% of 10mm.
I was responding to the GP who said "Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use." I disagree with that statement. If you are trying to read into my reply that I think the Internet situation in the US is flawless, you are stretching!
Absolutely not, but I do agree with the statement for the most part: choice between DSL or Cable is not really "choice", it is simply the lesser of 2 evils - and it certainly does not resemble anything that could be called "a free market".
HOWEVER, if it were such that you had 2 wires in to your house (one DSL and one Cable, or even 3 wires if you were lucky enough to have fiber as well) and 10 different retailers supplying services on each set of infrastructure, THAT, is what I would call genuine choice, and this is what America needs IMHO.