Glad you’re looking into this. However, I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion it’s anti-capitalist. Unethical? Sure, unless the sell price really does reflect the resource acquisition cost. Un-American? Could argue it either way.
Capitalism is a free market by definition. Supply and demand. Charge what you want, let the customer decide if it’s worth the price. Now there are supposed to be protections against multiple different groups coming together to collude on an inflated price. Though often that’s difficult to prove. Where do you get that evidence?
You think telecom / internet companies magically decided not to have more than 2-3 companies of their type in a given area? They are well aware that limiting consumer options means they all benefit from being able to charge more for the service. It’s an intentional tampering of natural supply and demand, sure. You could argue that any tampering of natural supply and demand is unethical, yet it happens throughout many industries… Oil companies adjust how much oil they pump out based on demand and attempt to predict demand so that there’s never an oil surplus. The corn lobby had so much corn they convinced politicians to allow it to be put into our gasoline even though it’s bad for engine components, especially smaller engines. There’s numerous examples like this which go unchallenged.
Since much of these practices go unchallenged, I fail to understand how it’s anti-capitalist. It seems pretty standard to me. Hope you find what you’re looking for.
P.S. - If you make so much of something you can no longer make a profit on it due to over abundance then I would argue it’s not unethical to reduce production, just common sense.