However, I'd be less irritated about losing Net Neutrality if competition actually existed in the US. Break up the monopolies and maybe we can talk about allowing the free market to guide companies to do the right thing instead of requiring regulations.
I get that the cities don't want the poles along the road loaded down with a dozen different cables, but fiber optic is a lot thinner than copper pairs. Or perhaps they could have a couple of companies run the infrastructure at the wholesale level and resell to the "retail" broadband providers.
There's plenty of space on the poles. Cities don't let companies build fiber because of politics. It costs nothing politically to vote to deny an application for a franchise. Most voters just don't care about it. But grant a franchise on non-restrictive terms and potentially end up with new fiber being built to rich neighborhoods but not poor ones? As Google learned in Kansas City, now you've stepped on a political landmine.
The problem where I live is I have two ISP choices that are equally bad for different reasons. One the one hand I have the reprehensible Comcast whom I won't do business with ever again because of how they screw people and how bad cable tv is. On the other hand, I have Frontier, the world's shittiest phone and DSL service which is way over-subscribed. My neighbor refers to it as "North Korea Internet" which is accurate. I only go through Frontier because Comcast as a company is ethically far worse.