The ISP's never got "$200 billion" in the 1990's. That's a total made up number, based on taking what ISP profits would have been had they been regulated as a utility, and calling everything over that "money given to ISPs."
The premise of deregulation was that it would lead to increased infrastructure spending. And it has: the late 1990's and the 2000's saw massive investment into cable and wireless. People assumed at the time the money would go into fiber, but demand exploded in wireless so investment went there instead.
If you have more interest in understanding the issue, there's plenty of good assessments. Everything from the explosion of wireless, to hdtv, to local municipalities, to mergers, and technological limitations are to blame.
Oft repeated but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 lays out a compelling argument that maybe the government didn’t actually hand out $400B in subsidies/tax breaks but instead it’s an artifact of how the researcher for the book chose to classify profits but that you could make an alternative pitch. I’m not well-versed enough in the law to know but it sounded like this person did research vs quoting a summary of the book by its author.
Not disagreeing with the rest, but if the other poster was correct it may be worth correcting the record on whether or not we actually did attempt to fund building fiber throughout America.
The ISP's never got "$200 billion" in the 1990's. That's a total made up number, based on taking what ISP profits would have been had they been regulated as a utility, and calling everything over that "money given to ISPs."
The premise of deregulation was that it would lead to increased infrastructure spending. And it has: the late 1990's and the 2000's saw massive investment into cable and wireless. People assumed at the time the money would go into fiber, but demand exploded in wireless so investment went there instead.