and how one defines "broadband" is pretty important

but let's take your data. 90% of US households can select from 2 or more providers for connections between 10 and 25 Mbps (a huge range). Netflix itself suggests a connection of 5 Mbps or greater for a high definition stream. 90% of households are more than OK for that application. In fact, using your data, 90% of households have a choice of companies capable of supporting 2 simultaneous high def streams.

Pre-streaming, there were very few applications requiring more than a few mbps. Think about it, NFLX streaming service is really a post 2012 phenomenon. Applying that logic, both cable and DSL were perfectly adequate services for the average household. For most of the growth years, there were reasons for the providers to compete.

Today, homes may need to support multiple simultaneous high def streams and run other apps in the background Non-fiber telephone cos are going to have a tough time delivering that- which gets us to the 25 Mbps column, where we run into issues.

I'm going to ignore the 100 Mbps column- which gives the chart a dramatic effect but really isn't relevant (very niche in terms of actual 'need' and very few people willing to pay the rates in my neck of the woods- available from both Verizon and Comcast).

But my point was a simple one. For years and years and years, cable companies and telephone companies competed for customers. Bit rates increased, prices may have (don't have the facts at my fingertips), I haven't had anyone throttling my traffic. It has been in their best interest to have me getting more and more utility out of the service (no pun intended). Whether that changes with slowing growth, a less relevant telephone co infrastructure, etc is anyone's guess- which was really the point of my post (that you must not have read through to the end because you had a chart you really wanted to put to use).
[Post edited by Capital City Hoo at 11/22/2017 3:46PM]