I have “signaled my preference” to the only provider allowed in my area (please see Chad’s post below). Defined within the context of providers of television networks (which was my unstated, because I considered it unnecessary to state, assumption of my previous posts), there is no feasible alternative to cable for me.
I am not arguing there is market failure here ? do you understand that point? I am arguing that the market is being prevented by the local authorities, for whatever reason, in addressing the problem. (Maybe I’m wrong in that ? maybe they have tried with the promise of enfranchisement to recruit additional cable companies to enter the market. I don’t know. I just know there’s no alternative here, and I’m more inclined to think the problem rests with the lack of enfranchisement.)
I am not calling for price regulation, &c., just asking for a more free market (the prices would adjust accordingly, after all). In lieu of that, however, the choice I face with regard to cable TV is a Hobson’s choice, and there’s really no argument against that. Either I take it from the one and only provider in the area as they dictate it, or I don’t get cable TV.
Your auto dealership analogy continues to miss the point. I think it’s not the size of the market that is preventing other competitors from entering; it’s the local government (even with startup costs being an issue, as Chad pointed out.) But preventing additional competitors is a rather severe form of regulation, is it not? Given that, I don’t see how seeking local officials to enfranchise more cable providers could lead to more restrictive regulation, as you argue.
