> The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile
> devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my
> "freedom" in any real sense of that word
Is that really the case? If Microsoft specifically tries to prevent competitors
from coming to market through anti-competitive actions, then they are limiting
my 'freedom' in that they are trying to limit the options that I have when I
have a choice to make on which operating system to use, no?
Limiting freedom doesn't apply solely to the freedom to make a choice, it also
applies to limiting the options one has to choose between. When AT&T lobbies
the government to allow them to refuse access to their last-mile lines to
3rd-party ISPs, then AT&T is limiting my freedom b/c now I have fewer choices
in ISPs in my area.
What anti-competitive actions do you refer too? Murder, kidnapping and blackmail are illegal. Price fixing high just leads to higher demand for alternatives. Price fixing low serves the consumer. And Microsoft owns their OS, which is a distribution channel and can exclude any applications they want for any reason (that's their freedom). But, Microsoft can't make you buy anything, all they can do is set a price and pay for the eye-level shelf of their choosen distribution channel.
Freedom means you do what you like with things you own. It does not mean every market should (or will) organize itself so as to maximally benefit you.
As for AT&T: of course. Behind every good monopoly is the government (and then they're protected by law -- and the threats of murder, blackmail and kidnapping for violation).
Limiting freedom doesn't apply solely to the freedom to make a choice, it also applies to limiting the options one has to choose between. When AT&T lobbies the government to allow them to refuse access to their last-mile lines to 3rd-party ISPs, then AT&T is limiting my freedom b/c now I have fewer choices in ISPs in my area.