I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly

I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Now, I suppose I get the general idea of "why forbid the lower quality good, if doing so only prevents some people from being able to afford the good in any form, when before they would have bought the lower quality version?". But, does that argument apply to the artificially restricted vehicle example I gave? I find it hard to believe that the company in that hypothetical wouldn't be doing something wrong, and which should be dealt with. However, I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. Would the internet case be more like the weird case I described, or more like insurance which doesn't cover as many things?