> What telecoms — correctly — object to, are efforts by local governments to compete with them. ...yeah, they don't permit competition from their subsidiaries.
If that were something besides pro-telecom BS, there would be more than two competing businesses, individuals, or non-profits in most American markets. America's the Land of Entrepreneurs - you don't think anybody in America had this guy's idea? Those folks were almost all shut down, generally by clubbing them with a compliant government that works for the industry.
So we always have just the two offerings, who have, mysteriously, the same price, though they use completely different infrastructures. Just like TV happens to cost the same whether delivered by cables that were paid off by the early 90s, or satellites 40,000km overhead. What are the odds such different technologies would cost exactly the same to the consumer?
Bottom line, you don't get to use the "compete" word about the telecom, cable, or internet industries in the US. They are not competitive, compared to world-wide figures, because they simply do not compete with each other; they divide up markets, send each other signals as to the common price, and enjoy high profits as rentiers who own an oligopoly.
The Spanish market is competitive, *by comparison*, and yet it's massive companies that should be able to beat a bunch of hobbyist amateurs with their economies of scale and PhDs by the squad...but instead the hobbyist amateurs are beating them at their own game. Because even they are not all that competitive.
When there are more than six providers competing in a marketplace, you can use the "C" word to describe the situation; so says classic economics theory as confirmed by many, many observations in many markets for many products. Fewer than six, and they don't have to meet in a smoke-filled room to agree on pricing; the signals are sent in the pricings themselves, and fewer than six can quietly agree not to get cut-throat.