The biggest problem is the lack of options. Companies don't want to improve their infrastructure because they don't have to. There are regulations in place that make it almost impossible for a start-up ISP to come into an area where large ISPs reign (ie Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, etc.). I work for a small to moderate ISP in Maine. The main reason we have been able to prosper is the fact that we are a 100 year old company. We started with phone service and expanded from there. We only just started blowing up our last 10 years.

We take pride in taking customers from TimeWarner and Fairpoint because they can't compete with what we offer. Our biggest limitation is the fact that our footprint is so small. When we think about expanding, we have to weigh how much business we will get. Any new areas we put physical plant in is run with all fiber. Gone are the days of copper backbones and DSL / Cable links. We offer FTTP connections for less than Fairpoint charges for DSL and our customers get 10 times the downstream bandwidth.

You are always going to run into the large providers that don't change because they don't have to. If they lose 10% of their customers in a given area, they are still making more money than they know what to do with. The only way a company will change is by public outcry. If you don't want to pay high prices for low bandwidth, your option is to switch providers (if you can), or drop internet completely, which all of us know is almost impossible in this day and age. Just pray for small start-up ISPs in your area. They will work with you and against TimeWarner. Believe me, we take no greater pride than cutting into TimeWarner's or Fairpoint's market share. While we are no where near theirs, we are steadily increasing while they are steadily decreasing. You have to look at it from the standpoint of return on investment. If a company is only going to profit pennies on the dollar of investment, they aren't going to invest in it. Capitalism is a great thing, but its also a bad thing. As the old saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I work for an ISP in the US and we don't block any ports. In fact, most ISPs don't block any ports at all here. Unless you live in a country that tries to regulate the internet, you are pretty much good to go. I know for a fact that, in the US, no ports are blocked by ISPs. You basically get an open pipe to send any traffic you want through it. As an ISP we aren't allowed to manipulate any traffic, we are only allowed to monitor and track it. So, by saying "Port 80 is blocked" doesn't make sense, unless of course you are outside the US. In most cases, it is hard to provide most customers with a "broadband" connection. While I do work for an ISP, our footprint is small to moderate. I live in Maine and population is scattered. Most connections, all we can offer is DSL, which, as everyone knows, all depends on how far away from the DSLAM you are. Unless you are using a bonded DSL link, no DSL connections can reach the 4 Mbps standard that is considered a "broadband link". The only services which can consistently offer a high rate of bandwidth that most home customers can get is FTTP (fiber to the home) or Cable, everyone else is left out of the mix unless you want to pay excessive amounts of money for high speeds over copper (T1 etc.). I know my company offers 40 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up at around $40 a month, which is extremely cheap. I can't get our service where I live and I pay upwards of $45 a month for a 7 Mbps down and 1 up. I guess it all depends on where you live. To be honest, I would rather have a slower speed, but have everything at my finger tips. I really don't understand how people in other countries brag about their speeds when a lot of sites and content is blocked by their ISP due to country restrictions. Guess its all in what you would rather have.