[ataggart]

If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.

I mention this for a reason. Thoreau said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Before we start hacking, we need to be clear on which are the branches and which are the roots.

[sabat]

The corporations are the roots, and the govt represents the branches. Seeing it the other way around is delusional.

If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.

Because you get tempted by alluring advertising, or by false promises. Ultimately there is no good reason to switch if they're all the same -- but that's the way quasi-monopolies like it. They aren't interested in competition. They're interested in sucking more money out of their existing customers -- much easier!

Don't mistake Adam Smith's concept of hundreds of competitive small businesses with two or three corporations dominating an entire industry. The rules of capitalism -- real capitalism -- no longer apply. It's corporatism. Their way or the highway.