Comcast recently made the headlines of The Washington Post for its sizable campaign contributions to opponents of Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn. Although the company has publicly denied it, it is abundantly clear that these contributions are a reaction to McGinn’s efforts to redesign Seattle’s Internet service. 

McGinn, who stated, “I have Comcast, and I would like better service,” has plans of encouraging a public-private partnership in order to compete with the cable company, which has essentially monopolized Internet service in his city. 

The lack of competition in the Internet industry is not a problem unique to Seattle — it’s a nationwide epidemic. According to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, about 89 percent of residents in the United States are limited to choose between five broadband providers. If that’s not considered a monopoly, I don’t know what is. 

When I moved into my new apartment I had a first-hand encounter with this Internet monopoly issue and its ramifications. The only option I had was Time Warner Cable, which took just less than two months to get the Internet installed, despite having overcharged me the entire time. 

I called its customer service line three times. Each time they told me it would remove the excess charges. It never did — why would they? 

What am I supposed to do about it? Not use the Internet? Start my own cable company?

If I owned Time Warner Cable, it probably wouldn’t even have a customer service line because the demand for its products is remarkably inelastic and doesn’t have a single competitor. 

According to Susan Crawford, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York, one third of Americans don’t have Internet in their homes, often because they are unable to afford it. 

It would be difficult to come up with a scenario in which the need for an anti-trust law was more necessary. Any time there is not a single competitor in a market for a product or service, the consumer will be taken advantage of. This case is no exception.