The problem is not the lack of competition but the very concept of telecommunications which presumes that bits are valuable freight and tries to fund wires and radios as a profit center. This can't work because the value now lies outside the network and needs a funding model (infrastructure) that aligns incentives.
The problem is very simple -- when we do services our self the defining premise of telecom -- service funding fails. And you can't make it up by selling bits because bits have no intrinsic value. The number of bits consumed has no relationship to the value and no relationships to consumption -- you aren't using up the fiber.
We need access to the basic physical facilities -- copper, fiber and radios -- to exchange bits among ourselves. As with our home networks we can expect to see capacity increase rapidly to meet the demand once we own our facilities.
The issue of Neutrality is a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. The problem is that we have a chimera called Telecom.
Easier to point to writings including First Square Mile and FTC Broadband Competition NOT. The basic problem is that telecom isn't a marketplace so you can't expect the marketplace to solve it but neither should we repeat the imposed solutions as in 1934.
Once we recognize that there is not really a telecom industry -- just transports controlled by privileged service provides the solution is obvious -- don't do that. The transport is like roads (but without the physical encumbrances) and it is not a profit center -- it's infrastructure. We must not give it all to privileged service providers who are allowed to take what they can in return for giving us a trivial amount of “free” “Internet” while preventing us from creating our own solutions. Assuring Scarcity demonstrates that they industry knows that they are acting to restrain trade and they do it because they would not exist if we had a real marketplace.