How can the free market reign when the majority of US citizens are served by either just a single broadband provider?
Local and regional monolopolies or oligopolies completely crush the rise of any kind of competition, especially in the telco market which requires massive capital outlays.
So, while monopolies exist and the free market cannot work the way it should, what is wrong with net neutrality that ensures all packets are created equal?
So you mean ...
I see a weakness in this logic...
Yes, its easy to see a weakness in a circular straw man.
I've yet to see the argument that net neutrality formed the telco monopolies/oligopolies as they exist today as opposed to just natural market pressures combined with the necessary large capital expenditures to enter the market.
Capitalism's natural state in capital-intensive industries isn't a competitive wild west because the barriers to entry are immense. The natural state is a monopoly (which is illegal) and the next best thing... a few large players that consolidate over time and just split the market.
Barriers to entry are caused by regulation - which is caused by governments and the ensuing corruption.
Really?
As it is a natural state, as you say - where, in nature , do you see a monopoly, if it is such a natural state??
(resources is quite a common theme in nature - everything has to eat, so lets use that as the model...thanks)
A subjective term made by the powerful to serve themselves. So not really relevant to the prinicples of free markets
Staying on the natural state theme..
monoplies
Governments and giant corporations are the dinosaurs - and free markets and ctrypo - are the tiny mammals.
The natural state is for the quick, the nimble -and the hungry - to succeed.
I quite like the 'natural state' comparison, cheers