SBC Ameritech is perhaps not a good example. As a descendant of the old Bell system, it has a government granted monopoly of the right to string wires and provide local phone service in your area. And since it owns the wires, any other company that wants to use the wires must go through it. What other companies can use the wires and for what--and how much SBC Ameritech can charge them for it--is a monster issue in telecommunications regulation at the moment.
Telecommunications is a confusing and constantly changing industry, with several layers of government regulation (federal, state, and local). In some parts (e.g. long distance) and in some jurisdictions, there are real alternatives one can choose from. In others, there aren't. Sometimes this is a regulatory decision. Sometimes it is a matter of cost--stringing wires may well be a "natural monopoly." Sometimes it is a matter of inertia and/or uncertainty; companies must make guesses about what regulators will do in the future, what the state of technology will be, and how many people will be willing to pay how much for what.
Alas, the people who government regulators usually hear from are the people who they are regulating, and often regulators are more responsive to them than they are to unorganized consumers and potential consumers. All I was trying to say is that the "regulation" provided by open competition, by the consumer's implicit threat to take business elsewhere, can be very powerful.
And I suppose something else. It is frequently easier to take one's business to a different company than to make the first company's unresponsiveness a defining issue in a relevant election.
I have no idea how the Do Not Call Unless scheme would be enforced. I was just passing along a suggestion: if it's so important for some entity to cold call me, let them pay me for it.
Re: Sort of defending libertarians, and a Do Not Call idea
Telecommunications is a confusing and constantly changing industry, with several layers of government regulation (federal, state, and local). In some parts (e.g. long distance) and in some jurisdictions, there are real alternatives one can choose from. In others, there aren't. Sometimes this is a regulatory decision. Sometimes it is a matter of cost--stringing wires may well be a "natural monopoly." Sometimes it is a matter of inertia and/or uncertainty; companies must make guesses about what regulators will do in the future, what the state of technology will be, and how many people will be willing to pay how much for what.
Alas, the people who government regulators usually hear from are the people who they are regulating, and often regulators are more responsive to them than they are to unorganized consumers and potential consumers. All I was trying to say is that the "regulation" provided by open competition, by the consumer's implicit threat to take business elsewhere, can be very powerful.
And I suppose something else. It is frequently easier to take one's business to a different company than to make the first company's unresponsiveness a defining issue in a relevant election.
I have no idea how the Do Not Call Unless scheme would be enforced. I was just passing along a suggestion: if it's so important for some entity to cold call me, let them pay me for it.