Then that is the problem, ask yourself why that is?
Oh yeah, its because the local government gives monopolies to certain companies. That is the root of the problem, address it there instead of bandaid hacks that break core system.
It is not explicit granted monopolies, but more so de facto monopolies arising because the costs for a competitor to enter the ISP business are prohibitively expensive. With material costs, labor costs, and easement costs, it takes a major investment to run a mile of cable.
My question is this: Why are fiber lines not administered by public utilities? It works for power and roads.
As for the public utilities I completely or agree, or perhaps do it one better. Set up a not for profit that's independent from the government that sole purpose is to provide bandwidth with no restrictions.
Several locations have tried this (including my home state of Utah), and the cable/telco duopoly lobbyists got new laws passed that prohibited or severely restricted municipal broadband projects.
So once again, it's a problem with local government - a government that is a lot more responsive than the FCC or any federal solution. If the teclos can manipulate your local gov, imagine how effective they'll be at the national level.
I agree that local and state governments are a problem, but only because these national corporations have so much power over them. I don't agree (or at least I'm not yet convinced) that the FCC or Congress adding some "light touch" neutrality regulation would be a terrible problem, or that it's an either/or situation. In other words, these national ISPs need to be fixed at a national level, while broken local regulations need to be handled at a local level. Fixing one may help fix the other.
Once an ISP has established connections to several towns in a region, they can make much more compelling offers to nearby towns than an ISP with no presence in a region, because they've already got a backbone to the area. This is on top of the advantage that almost every residential ISP has in that they already have a monopoly on some other service (phone or cable TV).
ISPs probably should have a monopoly within a town, because it's not economical to set up several independent parallel data networks. The problem isn't that local governments grant these monopolies, it's that they don't regulate them. Ideally, local governments should be tightly regulating prices for internet connections and mandating that they are fair/dumb data pipes.
However, most towns don't have much bargaining power compared to the big ISPs who's quarterly revenue exceeds the town's GDP. Since the free market can't ensure fair or cheap internet connections when operating on the scale of the individual consumer or on the scale of whole towns, then we need to use state or federal legislation to keep the monopolies in check.
ISPs probably should have a monopoly within a town
Better yet, separate wireline service from the ISP. You rent the fiber, coax, or twisted pair copper link from the local infrastructure provider, who neutrally routes your traffic to your desired ISP.
Oh yeah, its because the local government gives monopolies to certain companies. That is the root of the problem, address it there instead of bandaid hacks that break core system.