Here is an example scenario:
Teslarati's SpaceX president teases Starship’s game-changing Starlink launch capabilities provides several links, including CNBC's article and discusses the difficulty of other companies deploying large constellations of satellites anywhere near the same cost per satellite as SpaceX can for several reasons.
It seems that one of the key reasons is that SpaceX has dramatically decreased the cost of launch to orbit by making rockets (almost) routinely reusable, and it's newest rocket Starship (currently under development) both quickly reusable and capable of deploying 400 Starlink satellites into orbit at a time.
In Space Exploration SE back in February 2019 I asked Regulations preventing SpaceX from saying “no” if OneWeb asked them to launch their satellites?. It's way too late to migrate, and so far there have been no answers. When it was suggested that I ask here in May 2019, I demurred.
On the question of SpaceX's ability to say "no" to OneWeb's request to put its constellation into orbit for them, I wrote in that question:
But since SpaceX operates in a highly regulated niche within the already highly regulated transportation industry, would they be able to simply say "no, your money's no good here" or are there regulations that would requite them to treat all potential customers in a similar way?
In the extensive comments there an interesting one draws a parallel to another industry:
there are industries where you aren't allowed to arbitrarily say "no" to potential customers. For example, FedEx and UPS are considered common carriers and are required to carry any package presented to them unless there is a compelling reason not to.
So I'd like to ask:
Question: In the US is launch to orbit service similar to common carriers? Do regulations say anything about a launch-to-orbit provider refusing to launch a competitor's payload?