OK, let's say you decide to go into business. You choose a product that gives you an exclusive territory. No one else can sell your product in that market. <snip>
But therein lies the rub, eh? Isn't the very granting of exclusivity contrary to the best interests of the consumer?
Free competition is the bedrock of a free enterprise capitalist system. Sure, every seller of a product wants to maneuver to get an edge over their (potential) competition, and in some cases they even get in bed with the government to prevent
competition. This seldom serves the consumer.
Want proof? You need only look at the airlines or telephone companies. They used to be regulated and the prices of those products today in actual numeric dollars (not time-value dollars) is in most cases lower than in the days of regulation. Consider inflation and prices today are pennies on the dollar. Competition lowers prices.
I own a liquor store. Sure, I'd like to be the only guy in town who can sell the products I carry, but I'm not. Sure, I'd like to have the government step in and prevent another liquor store from opening within, oh, say, about 200 miles of my store, but I can't.
If they did, I'd make even more money. I'd be able to curtail my hours, reduce my staff, raise prices and reduce my overhead — all to save costs and increase profit, secure in the knowlege that everyone has to buy from me.
Instead, I have to compete with both the small mom-'n-pop neighborhood stores and the big megopolies on price and service, and I do. In fact, I do such a good job that my store has been voted as the best in town. And I don't have access to any product or service that isn't also available all over town. Instead, I'm forced to simply do it better!
Sorry, Newshawk, I vigorously disagree with your underlying premise. If there ever was a day when exclusivity in any communications endeavor was appropriate, it is long past.