Your response:
Really? Show me one alternative economic system that has produced a higher standard of living over the long run than capitalism.I don't think you understand the concept of "creative destruction". The idea is that centralized control tends to be conservative, to prevent innovation and change. The stakeholders in the status quo can use their entrenched positions to leverage government power against innovations that threaten their regulated monopolies. Up until 1982 you could not buy a telephone handset for an extension line, you had to buy them from Ma Bell. It was illegal for non-Bell companies (MCI) to transmit microwave communications for third parties, only Bell was legally allowed to do so. No one could be a "common carrier" except Bell.
If the government regulates what content internet companies can carry, what they can charge and what level of service they provide, they are no longer in the business of serving customers, they are in the business of serving the government, and will focus attention on pleasing politicians rather than customers.
That's not true. You could buy handsets but not the telephone line from anyone other than Ma Bell. Also, natural monopolies (i.e., companies with a continually falling ATC curve as they get bigger) are regulated because it makes sense to allow them to have monopolistic powers.
Also, you are not talking about capitalism, but the regulation of capitalism, which is a political question, not an economic one. Perhaps I should have said unfettered capitalism outperforms other economic systems.