This article makes the assumption that when Comcast breaks net neutrality, all they're doing is providing "low quality" internet. That's true, but that's not r

This article makes the assumption that when Comcast breaks net neutrality, all they're doing is providing "low quality" internet. That's true, but that's not really the problem. Comcast being "low quality" isn't the issue -- they've always been low quality, net neutrality doesn't change that. The problem is that Comcast has a monopoly over the service. The article assumes "high quality" is some sort of choice that people can make. This is true in scotch or automobiles (as the author describes). This is not true in internet service, Comcast has a complete monopoly over the vast majority of the nation. An "optimal" part of stock is low quality stock, this is true. But a "mid quality" and "high quality" choice is also an optimal part of stock. Comcast is effectively mandating that every man, woman, and child in the country must pay for a "high quality" option, but only receive their "low quality" option. Surely, even the author should understand the difference here.