[kaibee]

> Was that because they got big, or was it because they were granted a government monopoly?

The first one. Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian talking point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without government intervention" is lunacy.

[gruez]

>The first one.

Can you provide the legislative history that supports this? According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone companies, cruise ships, and shipping companies operate as common carriers, even though none of them are controlled by monopolies.

> Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian talking point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without government intervention" is lunacy.

I'm not a libertarian, but I can still see the difference between "it would be really expensive to lay another set of phone lines" and "the state forbids you from laying another set of phone lines".

[kaibee]

> Can you provide the legislative history that supports this?

No, I'm not a lawyer/historian.

> According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone companies, cruise ships, and shipping companies operate as common carriers, even though none of them are controlled by monopolies.

Airlines, cruise ships, and shipping companies, do not own the 'land' (in the georgist sense) that they traverse, so they're just completely irrelevant to the discussion.

As for cell phone companies, you may remember that a certain company known as AT&T was famously broken up into dozens of smaller companies (that have since re-congealed). Also those companies are legally required to interoperate with each other, ie: your T-Mobile phone will "roam" on AT&T's network.

> I'm not a libertarian, but I can still see the difference between "it would be really expensive to lay another set of phone lines" and "the state forbids you from laying another set of phone lines".

As far as I'm aware, the state, does not forbid anyone from laying another set of phone lines or railroad lines or roads, for the same reason that it doesn't forbid anyone from violating conservation of energy.