Is monopoly in general a failure? Or is it AT&T in this particular instance?
Are the problems of monopolies solved by regulation in general? Or is this particular AT&T situation solved by regulation?
Is regulation the opposite of what capitalist economies should have? Or monopolies?
> Is monopoly in general a failure? Or is it AT&T in this particular instance?
Monopoly is in general a market failure (which is why antitrust laws exist). Therefore AT&T having the position it does (not a monopoly, but an oligopoly at best) is a market failure.
> Is regulation the opposite of what capitalist economies should have?
My understanding is that capitalism (in the sense that the great-grandparent post was using it) is something that involves not having regulation. Since AT&T's position is a consequence of this regulation, the assertion that we're observing capitalism (in the sense I think the great-grandparent used the term) is false.
Only when you're in a monopoly or an oligopoly or similar. And this is a market failure in a capitalist economy. In this case, it's enforced by regulation, which is the opposite of what a capitalist economy is supposed to have.