I think when people talk about lack of competition, the argument really isn't framed as the government just mandating things as an option. It's the free market solution. Of course we could just say "it's illegal to have shitty internet". I would support that, but, y'know, we love our freedom to have shit infrastructure here in the US. It's our goddamn right.
"Lack of competition" implies an antitrust solution, yet I have examples of countries where markets are extremely consolidated (and would be a slam dunk FTC case) yet are able to benefit the consumer.
My argument is that the amount of litigation needed in coordination with the FTC, FCC, and others makes an opaque system.
The American system isn't truly a free market - it's increasingly ossified, with decisions immediately litigated following a regulatory decision.
This incentivizes larger organizations with the capital to initiate litigation and continue to be players at the expense of potentially disruptive upstarts (ie. Startups).
At the end of the day, some industries are suboptimal if following a New America/Warren style vision of antitrust.
I don't disagree with the notion of antitrust, but I think "consumer harm" is a better heuristic than an "open markets" approach.
If an oligopoly arises yet is able to keep inflation down and production high, so be it.
If a monopoly or oligopoly is abusing it's position to extract higher than needed costs, then it's time to use the DoJ hammer.
An "open market" approach can be diametrically opposed to "consumer benefit" as it can prevent the economies of scale needed for commercial players to meet their financial needs. Instead, a subsidy or PLI driven approach to build more players would be a much better option, and we've already seen the positive impact that has had via the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
This is also the approach used by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and has helped minimize the amount of financialization compared to the US or the EU, and has helped maintain their commanding heights.
