i already listed my personal monopoly examples throughout IN. it is basically like a public utility (1 option like water, sewage, electric etc), except run by the few big corps (with a small % of the old dsl providers sprinkled in). the corps along with local governments come up with ridiculous bureaucratic bills to stifle competition.
for cable, i now have about 10 options. but if i were my current provider ATT, i would simply restrict my internet access, and force me to sign back up for cable through them again (option being cable via ATT, or no cable at all).
now i'm curious... how many provider choices do you have available?! if you have lived in other areas, have you always had numerous choices?
if you do not want monopolies as you say, how would the current administration go about eliminating the long, existing problem for consumers?
the current laws do not seem to be that effective in many places.
and with a zero regulation-complete free market, a monopoly/duopoly issue would be allowed as a possible outcome.
here are some other random city examples in recent years, and how most of the consumers have a predetermined single option (and some that actually had a whopping 2 options, still became 1 again after mergers!)
minneapolis, la, boston:
That's good information. It's also interesting.
I genuinely don't recall you listing your examples throughout IN.
What's more, I don't know all the zip codes in the Minn/SP area, but, as I go through some of the M/SP zips, broadbandnow.com lists 100% (or near 100%) coverage for at least 2 DSL/cable providers, as well as other options. Now, you might not LIKE those options, and I get that. But the solution isn't feeding the government beast.
But here's another point that hasn't been address, and that's this issue of monopolies. That term doesn't mean what it means in the context of the way it's being thrown around this thread. Set aside your M/SP example for a moment. Just because one business chooses to serve a particular market, that doesn't mean it has a monopoly. Consider 'the-middle-of-nowhere, IN'. That's not a pejorative, just a description. I like small towns. But, back to the point. Just because one gas station serves that market doesn't make it a monopoly. Same with a drug store, grocery store, etc. Now, I get it, that internet service is a bit different. But, this idea that a government is going to force companies to serve a market doesn't sit well with me, and shouldn't for any other freedom loving American.
Nor should we have LAWS that say a particular business MUST SERVE an area. And, I'm disappointed to see that's where we've arrived . . . laws, forcing a business to serve a particular market.
You complain about "ridiculous bureaucratic bills to stifle competition", yet, your sole solution is . . . more bureaucratic bills. And, who approves these mergers? Any guess?
If we must involve government, (which, we mustn't) why not have government work with private business and localities to offer more options?
That's a far cry from creating some government monstrosity, which will only grow bigger and bigger, and grow far beyond the original intent, encroaching on more and more people, all in the name of "helping" them.
