[jtaillon]

Should they? Why should one private company be forced to build infrastructure for other companies that are intentionally dragging their heels? GM doesn't run gas stations

It would be great if they could be altruistic to let anyone use them, but altruism isn't really a good path to profits in our society

[kube-system]

Because electrical distribution infrastructure is a utility in every other case.

Good on Tesla for building a solution, but their stations are monopolized, and this isn’t good for EV adoption overall. It’s good for Tesla.

[jtaillon]

Ok, then the government should be doing it and investing to meet current and future demand. A private company (in a non-regulated market) can't be forced to do so.

[kube-system]

I am not suggesting any of that. I explicitly said above that PHEVs are the more immediate solution to the situation.

[jtaillon]

Yes, in the same way a Cuisinart blender is a "monopoly" since I can only buy a Cuisinart blender from Cuisinart

No one's preventing anyone from building a better solution and making it available to consumers. Not a monopoly

[kube-system]

I am not suggesting that Tesla has prevented anyone else from building charging stations. I am using the word monopoly in the non-antitrust sense here.

[tene]

In what sense do you mean it, then?

Are any of these what you meant? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

None of those seem to apply to Tesla's charging stations to me. Could you explain more about what you're trying to say here?

[kube-system]

> To dominate or use to the exclusion of others.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/monopolize

Tesla's network of fast charging stations are owned by the manufacturer of the car, and they exclude others from using their network.