Comment Re:Free internet? (Score 1) 502
There are some cases where a regulated monopoly can deliver services more efficiently and cheaper than a free market system can, particularly when there are high infrastructure costs. Consider the water company - the distribution system just doesn't lend itself to a competitive structure. Imagine if you have several competing water companies in your town. They have the choice of creating a massively duplicitous distribution system or cooperating to create a single system, sharing the capacity. In the first case, the distribution system is amortized over a much smaller customer base than a single system and in the second case, the companies effectively create a monopoly.
With a public utility, the company exists in a non-competitive environment in exchange for subjecting itself to strict pricing regulations that limit the company's profits.
I guess that a case could be made for a telephone service-like system, where one water company would own the infrastructure and sell the water to another company who would resell it to the end user, but, like the telephone system, that just seems to introduce a new cost layer into the system. At some point, the product, whether it's water, sewer, telephone or whatever, is provided by a regulated monopoly.
That makes sense for a technology-type service, where the competition from the service providers drives innovation in terms of new services (call waiting and caller ID did not used to be ubiquitous). In other cases, there's only so much that competition can do to make the faucets run and the toilets flush.
As it happens, in my town, the water, sewer and trash are all small companies that service just my town. They've got monopolies, but they're not big corporations. And where my folks live, even the cable company is a small outfit. Not all monopolies are big corporations. And not all monopolies are bad.