@Nuclear Fusion -- Depends upon what one feels is a
'monopoly'. For instance, NADA is accusing Tesla Motors of wanting a monopoly by not using
'independent franchised dealerships' as a distribution method
'like everyone else'. Meanwhile, Tesla has exposed that the
'independent franchised dealerships' are claiming a monopoly on the sale of new vehicles, which they do not deserve.
Tesla Motors has made sure their cars could be charged pretty much EVERYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, using ANYTHING... And then they made all their patents open and royalty free... That doesn't seem like a monopolistic practice to me. More like an inclusive one.
Those who expect that the Supercharger network will eventually become a profitable enterprise that amounts to becoming
'The Next EXXON!' are woefully inaccurate. I would say something else, but that might find its way to Snippiness... Setting up the Superchargers to only operate with authorized vehicles is not monopolistic, but practical. Certain plug-in vehicles have extremely small battery pack capacities. Superchargers should not have to throttle back to accommodate them. And it sends the entirely wrong message if ICE based plug-in hybrids are allowed to use them. Tesla Motors cannot force GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, or Ford to join the Supercharger network. But Tesla can make an offer and set the terms for inclusion. This only becomes a monopoly if the others go out of business after refusing to join.