You are missing the point, behavior is an action. There are two separate actions occurring here: one lobbying and two government instituting a policy. To lobby the government for anything isn't anti-competitive because everone can do it. It is hyper competitive actually. The government actions are the anticompetitive element in this process. Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive.
The government shouldn't have this kind of authority and this example you gave of government using it's force to create anticompetitive market would not be possible if it did not or if the voters didnt accept that this is a proper thing for the government to do.
Give me a fucking break. Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit.
This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking.
Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here. Nice Try though.
How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government. So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works.
In any case the point I made from google fiber came from Schmidt himself.
His answer on Google fiber starts at 37:45
Note, he didnt complain about competitors, he complains about Local government.