Monopolies only exist when force can be used to sustain them. IE - they are approved by government.
There are very few places left in the US where there is only one provider. So few as to not even warrant being part of the NN discussion.
What this is about is the cost of bandwidth. Companies like Netflix and Amazon want everyone to pay the same and have the same access to bandwidth because it helps them and hurts their competition.
It also prevents smaller ISPs from being able to start up by preventing them from either a) restricting the amount of bandwidth available for streaming or b) preventing them from charging higher prices to the *provider* of streaming services for access to their bandwidth.
Note, there is nothing preventing them from charging their *customers* more...which is what they all end up doing because bandwidth is a cost of doing business and someone has to pay it.
So Netflix, Amazon, Spotify and other streaming services all get the same access to bandwidth. And the cost for that bandwidth - rather than being borne by only *their* customers through their subscription fee, is instead borne by *all* of an ISP’s customers - even those who don’t stream.
I think what you're saying is if you don't want monopolies the government must disapprove - that is, regulate. I agree.
And the cost for that bandwidth - rather than being borne by only *their* customers through their subscription fee, is instead borne by *all* of an ISP’s customers - even those who don’t stream.
That's totally up to the ISP and how they choose to charge their customers.
There's nothing preventing my ISP charging me more for streaming more data. If they did that my fellow ISP customers wouldn't be affected by what I streamed at all.
The problem for the ISPs is that customers reject this approach - they don't like metered connections. As a result the ISPs are looking to extort money from the content providers since they lack the market power to charge customers for what they use.