[Nextgrid]

I disagree that companies only compete thanks to regulation. Companies competing is the default - regulation sometimes (either as an unintended oversight or malicious intent thanks to lobbying/corruption) prevents it though.

There are many valid scenarios where competition is lacking, but generally speaking the reason it’s lacking is due to regulation/law making it impossible.

Telecoms for example is impossible because the incumbents have exclusive control of the physical infrastructure (poles/ducts under the street) or spectrum auctions where the price makes it impossible for a new entrant to enter.

Tech network effects are maintained by copyright law being abused to prevent adversarial interoperability.

[graemep]

> Companies competing is the default

If you had no regulation, they would simply form cartels or merge to create a monopoly.

[Nextgrid]

Merging and forming cartels is still technically a choice. A company could decide not to do that and compete. It may require a near-infinite amount of money, but it's still technically possible.

[A1kmm]

In the absence of any regulation, if a company's objective is to maximise profits, and it acts as a rational actor solely focused on achieving that objective, joining cartels, and creating barriers for entry is the end state of the market for nearly all starting conditions.