[HauntingPin]

It's clearly competition. The incumbent company saw a potential competitor and acted upon it. That's literally what happens when there's competition. It doesn't matter that the competitor didn't actually exist if the incumbent behaved as if it did exist.

I'm never sure what the point of comments like this is. "It seems incorrect". But it isn't. You just don't want to admit that competition is good and necessary.

[joe_the_user]

OK, I should have said "economic competition" though I imagined that it was implied.

If you just say "competition", you can point at the efforts of ten people to gain a seat on the politbureau as a clear case of this.

[hnthrow0287345]

If they ever find out they've been duped, they'll certainly go out of their way to make something worse down the line at the expense of the people.

These are the kind of short-sighted tactics that competition and capitalism breeds that belongs in luxury markets, not utilities or essentials.

[postsantum]

No, it's called market manipulation. OP's action caused spending at the expense of the companies. Not going to "won't someone think of the shareholders", but calling competition is misleading