I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn&#x27;t a fungible commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn&#x27;t be a thing. Also, local demand isn&#x27;t scalable. You only need one road outside your house. Several competing roads would be horribly underutilized on the low end of scale. On the high end you&#x27;re maybe onto something. Private bridges and freeways may be a decent idea. Private airlines certainly are. But then you&#x27;re right back to what I&#x27;m advocating.<p>My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe. Governments provide the &quot;last mile&quot; connectivity. ISPs compete to provide access to the outside world. This competition isn&#x27;t possible if the local infrastructure is owned by an ISP. They are incentivized to shut down the free market and reap their monopolistic rewards. They lock down their infrastructure. This creates a huge barrier to entry. They can then: Overcharge. Inspire competition. Crush them with their accumulated capital. Overcharge... Anyone attempting to compete is necessarily constructing redundant infrastructure. The &quot;zero government involvement&quot; thing actually hinders the free market here. Our road system enables tremendous free market enterprise. If retailers had to pay a road cartel for the right to do business it would be a disaster. Walmart would take over the roads and overpower anything it cared to which depended on them. Basically what Facebook is trying to do in India.