Agreed about Prosecco, which is a proper, naturally made wine as against Champagne, which isn't.
Most Champagne is made from a base of very thin and sour wine, doctored by the house to become excellent or less so depending on how much work the house does on it. This is principally because Champagne is way too far north to allow grapes to fully ripen, even if they enjoyed good weather, which they don't. So even the best grapes (Chardonnay and Pinot Noir) won't produce good wine - as in soooo many other countries, though for different reasons!
The Veneto (the only geographical area allowed to call their wines Prosecco) by comparison, is much further south and not so high as to stop the grapes ripening. Though Prosecco is seen by northern Europeans as "a cheap version of Champagne", the better Proseccos are much better than that. Different certainly, and definitely not trying to imitate Champagne as the difference is significant.
I drink lots of Prosecco. My best is some that I bought direct from the producer in the Valdobbiadene Conegliano region which is truly excellent and set me back about €10 a bottle. Down the hill a bit at Treviso the wines are lower in quality and price.
Our normal "house" Prosecco comes from Lidl who have just put their price up to over €5. It's from Valdobbiadene Conegliano and is really quite good.
The big threat to Prosecco is that get-rich-quick firms in UK and USA will market the hell out of it to make it popular with a gullible public, then the big producers in the Veneto will put their prices up and ruin it for us all.