That's all well and good, but like it or not Windows is still the litmus test. The standard of measure is the version of Windows most people are using today. Linux might be better than it was, but it's not even close to being a realistic replacement for Windows or Mac OS for the general non-technical public. Those "unfriendly versions of Windows back then" were very friendly for the times and what made computers usable by the average consumer. It is also a big reason that Windows become the standard OS that everyone knows (and needs to know for most office related jobs) how to use.

Until Linux is realistically comparable to Windows or Mac OS in the ease-of-use department it will always be an extreme niche player on the desktop like it is today.

Anyone in advertising that I've ever spoken with always insists people love advertising. However, I've never spoken to anyone outside of advertising that says they like ads. I would think the emergence of things like DVRs, browser adblockers, etc would be a big clue to the advertising industry.

What you describe sounds more like A Clockwork Orange than 1984. Maybe one set of problems causes the other?

If they can't find a way to make the market competitive then I agree, but I think it would be much better if they had to compete like cell phone companies compete. Then instead of trying to invent ways to avoid upgrading infrastructure and rape their customers, they would actually have to provide decent service at competitive prices.

But until someone figures out how to bypass the need to "share" infrastructure, like phone wires that were paid for by the local phone company monopoly, I don't see how that can really happen. Maybe have the town or county own the local loop or last mile to everyone's house? I don't know.

As the very first sentence I wrote started, "One of the reasons...", I'm not sure where you got the idea that I "honestly think that competition to lower prices is only achieved through skimping on quality or reliability..." Obviously I don't. Read more carefully before replying please. ;)

That said, as others have pointed out, a sanctioned and regulated monopoly is not necessary in the example you cite.

Limiting competition is indeed the goal of a regulated monopoly -- that would be the reason we use the word "monopoly." However the goal here is not inherently to allow a single entity to profit in as much as it is to make sure a scarce resource (telephone poles, underground conduits, water pipes, etc.) are used to best effect. The only other alternative is to have the government own the infrastructure and provide the service themselves. I don't think that's a good idea either.

If you honestly think free market competition is the best way to go for crucial infrastructure services, I point you at California's electric power fiasco as evidence you are very wrong. California did exactly that in 1996. Now prices are high, supply is low and you get to enjoy rolling blackouts every summer! w00t!

One of the reasons for enforced monopolies is that for an infrastructure service that is considered "crucial", like electricity, phone and water you don't want the inevitable pressure to cut costs by scrimping on reliability in order to compete. That is why these enforced monopolies are, in theory, regulated heavily.

Of course, I personally don't think that precludes heavy competition with heavy regulation, but what do I know. :)