This is accurate. Net neutrality is a band-aid on an open wound. This is not to say that net neutrality should be done away with - stopping a bad thing from get

This is accurate. Net neutrality is a band-aid on an open wound. This is not to say that net neutrality should be done away with - stopping a bad thing from getting worse is, after all, what band-aids are for. The problem is the wound itself. There is no where in the US where Comcast and Charter are competing. In fact, when you filter down to functional internet providers (10Mbps+) very few places have any choice at all. This is an effective monopolization, made possible through explicit cartelization. And where there is no open wound, the market does work, and net neutrality isn't really an issue. Australia, for example, legislates that any owner of the infrastructure must lend it to other providers at a set price. Where a lack of net neutrality is kept in check there by the market, a similar lack of would only be used in the US to achieve greater price granularity/discrimination at the expense of the consumer.