"As a regulated monopoly, Verizon faces other challenges. A couple of months ago, for example, Sen. Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, railed against the Bell companies' insistence on being allowed into the long-distance business in return for opening up their territories for competition, as provided for in the Telecom Act of 1996. "The Bell companies really belong to the people," he said, "so they should be required to cooperate with the public interest to create competition in local service." The Bell companies, on the other hand, tend to believe that their properties belong to the shareholders, and they are loath to give away access without adequate compensation."
I didn't know this idea of natural monopolies being public goods had survived Judge Green's reign. Anyway, is this a convincing argument for increasing competition? Or is Hollings just upset that the Telecom Act of 1996 has essentially failed for consumers? I think the right argument that Verizon must obey the law.
Chris