1) Which is either where the comparison gets accurate to bandwidth without net neutrality, or breaks as a comparison with net neutrality, because then it's FIFO regardless of which service/delivery network.

2) When you say usually, do you mean globally or in the US where we're discussing net neutrality? Because there most certainly usually is a local monopoly.

There most certainly is not.

100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...

> There most certainly is not.

> 100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers.

That's false going by your own source. Broadband requires 25Mbps/3Mbps [1] (even if I personally think even that's low), and 58% percent of developed census blocks lack choice there, of which 21% can't even get it.

The truth remains that if you want broadband, you're in a majority of cases locked to a local monopoly. This is what net neutrality fixes. Until local monopolies can be dealt with at least.

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...

Hm, looks like the definition of high speed internet changed in 2015. (Since we need all that bandwidth to download crap ads.)

In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers.

> In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers.

Nice cherry picking. So screw those other 37% that live under ISP monopolies?

Are you still denying that local monopolies is a real problem?

They should have updated the speeds considered "broadband" but by definition, you'll always have a portion of the population lagging behind any standard that's defined as "what 80% of the population had access to"

Avoided the question.