Oh I agree with this entirely. Market competition can be fantastic, but is only really possible in domains where consumers are A.) able to make choices (eg., not fire or ambulance or life-saving medical services), based on B.) sufficiently good-enough information (doesn't need to be perfect, just good-enough), where the suppliers are C.) sufficiently well-regulated so as to prevent the formation of monopolies or cartels.

This isn't theoretical; it can and does happen -- just not for every type of good or service, and rarely by accident. A well-functioning market has to be designed.

Analogy: the freest roads of all would have no lane markings or regulations. This would give you "freedom from" regulation, but wouldn't give you the "freedom to" do very much. Roads with rules and regulations aren't "un-free"; they just prioritize "freedom to" over "freedom from".

And in some places, of course, mass transit just works better. Markets, too, aren't for everything. But when government is going to intervene to control prices, without actually taking any responsibility for the provision of said goods and services themselves, then those price controls quickly become divorced from reality, and do little besides create deadweight losses in some places and black markets in the rest. That's a lose-lose proposition.

i.e. Comcast.