Yes, exactly right. The vast majority of programming is editing code, and cursorless allows you to A) Navigate code quickly and B) do things using less navigation than you could with Keyboard/Mouse.
I am a cursorless user myself. Using dictation software for programming is actually relatively fast when you get used to it, but editing code (which is how most of us spend the majority of our time) can be pretty slow. Cursorless was a huge productivity booster for me. It got me to switch from Emacs to VS Code which is saying something.
I definitely agree with you that they are dangerous monopolies, I hope I didn't come across as defending them.
I think the overall point though is that both the telecom and search engine market experience the network effect. In a telecom's case, the effect is more literal. For search engines, they increase in value as they can collect data on more and more users (which increases the value of the search engine to the users and the cycle continues). Saying that there are dozens of alternatives to me is like saying there are dozens of alternatives to Facebook. There are, but my Grandma isn't on them so do I really care?
I think that the network effect is really hard to regulate around effectively. Just look at Bell. the resulting companies from the Bell antitrust case are the same companies we are discussing as having monopolies on internet access. I absolutely agree that we have an issue, but I just don't know of a solution.
I definitely won't argue that telecoms play fair, but there are high barriers to entry for starting a telecom. If you start a new telecom only to compete for customers with an existing telecom in a certain area, you have to pay a huge expense to build out your network and your upside will be limited by the ensuing price war.
Not arguing that starting a telecom is easier than a search engine, but I think a large part of that difficulty is inherent to the industry.