"Net neutrality IS a government assisted monopoly"
It seemed to be the opposite to me. A monopoly is a single supplier that dictates everything, esp price and service. Net neutrality is more like free market where it blocks artificial restrictions to boost benefits for consumers.
There used to be a consideration of monopolies that tried to hold them back from "Restraint of Trade" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade). The wikipedia page hints that it has been subsumed into modern "competition law" but really it feels like it's dropped away completely as a consideration.
Once you sell a internet connection to a customer, it seems to feel like a restraint of trade if you start messing with the traffic of some companies but not others.
Though I suppose it's not clear how this applies between state governments and cities.
The point become regulations are actually a firewall for incumbent. The more regulation you have the up-start is unlikely to enter and complete. Uber brought disruption through rough-shodding taxi regulation.
Not all regulations are the same in nature or effect. The introduction of regulation that introduce restrictions on who can compete has eliminated nearly all competition and most innovation in them. Most areas have 1 or 2 providers that charge high prices for low speed and service. The regulations like net neutrality that eliminate restrictions on what users can do increase innovation in the space.
It seemed to be the opposite to me. A monopoly is a single supplier that dictates everything, esp price and service. Net neutrality is more like free market where it blocks artificial restrictions to boost benefits for consumers.