[hyperpape]

I've never felt that implication.If companies engage in effective (but legal) lobbying to benefit themselves at the public expense, that's regulatory capture even if it's not literally corruption.

I guess it could be an argument about what corruption means, but I think that people underestimate how dysfunctional the legislative and regulatory processes can be even without any legal violations.

[rayiner]

Regulatory capture is more than just lobbying, it's a hijacking of the regulatory process by regulated companies. In any case, lobbying is an attractive narrative, but I don't see the link between lobbying and the actual anti-competitive regulations. Verizon and Comcast didn't lobby to be forced to build fiber/cable all over vast swaths of ghetto. AT&T isn't lobbying for San Francisco to impose inane restrictions on where you can put fiber cabinets.

To put it another way: look at the regulations Google demands exemption from in return for building fiber: build-out requirements, slow permitting, etc. Did the incumbents lobby for these things? No. They arose out of municipal politics that have little to do with lobbying.

[nl]

Self interested lobbying is different to regulatory capture.

Even Wikipedia says:

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

I don't think I could say it better. Regulatory capture is different to lobbying because the regulatory agencies act in the interest of the company instead of the public. Lobbying is when the company puts forward its own interest.