[smsm42]

Telecom market is obviously not a free market - there are piles of regulations, both federal and local. It looks, however, as the OP sees free market as "suppliers do what I want" - which may be a consequence of free market, sometimes, due to consumer's power to withhold purchase from suppliers that don't do what they want - but is not a condition. There could be free market where consumers have no choice - i.e., if for some reason there's only one supplier of said good. Simplest example would be unique non-commodity items - if somebody has the Picasso painting that you want, you can't just go to a competitor and buy it from them, you have no choice. Another example can be markets with very high barriers of entry and very low profit margins, where fixed costs of entering the market may outweigh potential benefits, and as such once one player has established itself there may be extended periods - with completely free markets - that there is no competition for them on that market.

So, the absence of buyer's choice is not per se an evidence of the market not being free, and there's nothing in free market that ensures buyer would always have a choice - only a promise that in most cases, the choice would exist, supported by ample evidence.

[kar2014]

Remember ATT bid for T-Mobile? FCC stopped the deal to keep the competition and also so consumers have a choice. Same applies here but seems they are turning their eyes away. Your example of Picasso painting does not apply, by definition that is one of a kind item and only selected people want them, it is not a commodity, so market competition does not apply.

[smsm42]

Market is any set of voluntary exchanges, I just point out that some markets can have no competition despite being free. This can happen even in commodity markets, e.g. if somebody owns a huge chunk of the market. E.g. diamonds & De Beers. For telecom markets, there seem to be no substantial reasons why healthy competition can not exist on a free market.