"If Netflix started at $100/month, would they have the customer base that they have now?"

False analogy. Netflix isn’t alone in the market – unlike cable channels where once you have that one box – or even just that cable drawn – you’ve got exactly one choice of entertainment provider. You know how to spell "natural monopoly"? Because this is how you create one.

Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Hulu and every other choice of online streaming vendor know damn well their business model relies on two things – convenience and competitive edge. Failing either presumptive customers just hoist the jolly roger and sail off for the bay of pirates instead. So unlike the natural monopoly and lock-in "generously" provided by Cable, there is actual choice.

Cable has a long and proven record of being the worst possible, highest cost, most inflexible choice in general, a situation accreted by the cable provider knowing damn well consumers had no choice – and in the days where in order to get to MTV and the movie channels you also had to accept paying an extra 80% to be served an unholy mess of sport, porn, theology, cooking channels, etc, that worked. People grumbled and paid because if you wanted to watch the NHL playoffs you needed to fork it out for Indian Cricket Leagues as well.

Now here is where your entire argument presents a massive incredibly flawed assumption; Every household already needs to pay the internet bill. It’s not tied to the cable and box.

Your presentation after that becomes a series of one broken logic after another where you argue that because the ISP is monopolistic, any argument about getting rid of cable is irrelevant. And it obviously isn’t, as many millions of cable cutters will attest.

"I’d rather there be an increase in ISP/cable companies locally, and that these companies fight each other to get my $$."

I can understand that, but if you live in the US that obviously won’t happen – because Trump and Ajit Pai, or possibly because Biden later on, because neither party likely to have a president and congress within this century inclined to piss in the punch bowl of major campaign donors.

To get to the point where there is a viable choice of providers you’d need to go with the various european models where all core infrastructure is subject to enforced bandwidth lease agreements – ensuring that the fiber laying, especially the "last mile", is often handled by joint ventures giving you at least two and sometimes up to six potential providers, initially.

But that would be government regulation or, as americans so often like to call it, "socialism". It’s not going to happen.

So if what you want is a multitude of choices then the US – in any area where it is at all possible to establish a natural monopoly – is not for you. It’s that simple.

And that leaves you with two options only; Pay for internet and cable where your monopoly provider ALSO holds your wallet hostage for entertainment…or internet only and your choice of streaming service or torrent page, depending on what stage of stupid your favorite streaming provider is at.