> 1. No one forced these people to sell.

Why do we need antitrust laws? Why do mergers need government approval? Or are you a libertarian who believes in unfettered capitalism?

Where does it end? What if I threatened you with violence to sell your business? Is that OK? You might correctly say "that's illegal". If so, does that stipulate we do need laws? How far can coercion go while still being legal? What if I also own your key suppliers? What if you run a veterinarian practice and I jack up the price of all your meds, radiological film, etc if you don't sell? What if I own the major pet insurance providers and decide that your practice, if you don't sell, is no longer covered by my insurance?

> 2. If above is ok

It's not.

> 3. Going to the article it is clear enough. These industries just are not lucrative to begin with

They're engaged in anticompetitive behavior but on a local level so it tends to escape scrutiny. Unfortunately, if you dog is sick and you like in Cincinatti, you don't really have the option to go Reno where there's (for now at least) a cheaper option.

This is all just rent-seeking behavior. Nothing about this is productive. The people who engage in this should be treated the same way profitters are in wars and natural disasters, which historically hasn't been a fine or legal sanctions. I'll put it that way.

> 4. Somehow leaving money on the table in the form of a backlog is bad?

That's what rent-seeking is. It's unproductive extraction of wealth by removing all other options.

Wait until PE comes for your ISP and suddenly a 1gig fiber connection is $300/month. What are you going to do then? Start your own ISP? Good luck with that.