A local cable company, the sole provider of cable television service, is regulated by the municipal government. The owner of the company claims that she is normally opposed to regulation by government, but asserts that regulation is necessary because local residents would not want a large number of different cables crisscrossing the city. Why do you think the owner is defending regulation by the city?

Because its better, profit-wise, for a firm to be a monopoly and be regulated than to openly compete in an unregulated market. The firm is able to maintain it's monopoly because the regulators keep outside competition from entering by not allowing new cable lines.

The owner of the cable company is defending regulation by the city for a specific reason: to prevent extensive visual clutter caused by numerous cables crisscrossing the city. This explanation suggests that the owner recognizes the potential negative aesthetic impact on the local residents and understands that they may prefer a more organized and visually pleasing environment.

However, it is important to note that this specific explanation given by the owner represents only one possible reason. Other potential reasons could include the desire to maintain a monopoly in the market, financial benefits, or regulatory oversight ensuring fair practices and customer protection. Without further information, it is difficult to determine the true motive of the owner.

To get a more comprehensive understanding, it would be helpful to gather additional context or directly ask the owner why they are defending regulation by the city.