The alternative to municipal broadband in many regions seems not to be a healthy free market with lots of competition, but a single monopoly providing poor serv

The alternative to municipal broadband in many regions seems not to be a healthy free market with lots of competition, but a single monopoly providing poor service at high cost. The great strength of neoliberal ideology is that it seems uniquely capable of turning its own failings into arguments in its own favor. Whenever it fails -- such as in the rural US where there are large swathes of the country where there is no competition, poor service and high prices -- its defenders are quick to point out that these failings are the result of their theory not being applied with sufficient purity. Their predictions of lots of competition, high efficiency, and low prices fail to materialize not because the theory is wrong, but because there are still some rules and regulations, and clearly, those rules and regulations are what prohibits the neoliberal paradise from coming into existence. Not only did the theory not fail, the failure of its implementation is proof of the correctness of the theory. As is the case with your comment, this argument is rarely paired with an argument (or evidence) of how exactly the existing rules and regulations prevented healthy competition from materializing in the specific case under discussion. This is taken as a global, self-evident truth. The possibility that some regulations might make encourage rather than inhibit competition (such as regulation that allows you to keep your phone number when you switch providers) is never mentioned.