Yes, lets take a look at what the article is saying
Now I'm putting this quote before the thing it's talking about so I can point out how it's wrong on a case by case basis.
It's worth noting—indeed, it's worth stressing—that essentially none of these scenarios has come to pass over the past 20 years, despite the lack of Net Neutrality legislation.
OK, now it's time to refer to the points they're talking about
The typical nightmare scenario that gets trotted out goes something like this: Comcast, the giant ISP that controls NBC Universal, will push its own content on users by simply blocking sites that offer competing content.
OK, they win one point. This hasn't happened... yet. Of course, the government could sue Comcast if they did since this was something they agreed to when they were allowed to buy NBC in the first place.
Or maybe it will degrade the video streams of Netflix and Amazon so no one will want to watch them.
This hasn't happen... oh who am I kidding, yes it has. See the next question for more details.
Or perhaps Comcast will just charge Netflix a lot of money to make sure its streams flow smoothly over that "last mile" that the ISP controls.
Bad point to mention as it's a complete lie. Time for a chart
See the upswing on the black bar near the end? That's where Netflix started paying Comcast 'a lot of money to make sure its streams flow smoothly over that "last mile" that the ISP controls.'
If this chart looks familiar, it should... it's the one that John Oliver used in his talk about Net Neutrality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
Or perhaps Comcast will implement tighter and tighter data caps on the amount of usage a given subscriber can use per month, but exempt its own content from any such limitations.
This actually happened in Georgia.
There have been occasional cases of this or that issue, but they were generally either the result of human error, technological breakdowns, or short-lived policies that customer complaints put an end to.
No, it's still going on and has expanded to additional markets to boot.
As for the charts themselves, one chart is a complete misrepresentation as @blakeyrat already pointed out. Oh, speaking of which, if you think that version's a lie, you should see the 2013 version of it:
Even the version that excludes wireless is complete BS:
Yes, it really is saying that 93%+ of Americans have 2+ wired providers that offer 10Mbps service.
Speaking of which, both of these charts need to be taken with a grain of salt
In doing so, however, we emphasize that a provider thatreports residential fixed-location connections of a particular speed in a particular census tract may not necessarily offer service at that speed everywhere in the census tract.Accordingly, the number of providers shown in Figure 5(a) does not necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular household, and does not purport to measure competition
5(b) has a similar disclaimer.
And now, back to the article.
The above comes from the FCC's summary of "Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2012" (the most recent document in the series that I found online).
It took me like 2 minutes to find the 2013 version. Hell, I found it by Googling the name of the version he linked to... it's hosted on the same FCC page as the 2012 version. However, the charts in it make it even more obvious that the numbers have little resemblance to reality.