Redirecting money and supporting certain businesses/industries through regulation is one of the more negative consequences that every American government has contributed to.
Regulatory capture (like in this case), subsidies that interfere with markets, bailouts, etc all cripple the economy by propping up businesses/industries that would otherwise die and make way for new competition.
Referring to “this case” as an instance of “regulatory capture” is weird. Incumbents lost this particular battle more than two decades ago, when the 1996 telecom act mandated nom discriminatory access to pole attachments for competitors. This is an additional rule to correct behavior that was trying to get around th spirit of the law (causing delays in the process). Regulatory capture requires regulated entities to take action beneficial to incumbent companies. For pole attachments, it’s been a 20 year process og doing the opposite.
Regulatory capture (like in this case), subsidies that interfere with markets, bailouts, etc all cripple the economy by propping up businesses/industries that would otherwise die and make way for new competition.