Should, for instance, no profits emerge the investment will be abandoned. The fact that Mr fist lives closer to the exchange than some other connected residents does not infer a subsidy. It costs no more to service the more distant residents than it costs to service him. It should also be pointed out that because the investment is specific it is also 'costless'. Bygones are bygones, Mr Fist.
Entrepreneurial errors lead to losses.
That during the Industrial Revolution some canal and railway builders made losses only highlights the facts that not only is specific capital frequently trapped or abandoned but that the quantity and proportions in which it is supplied do not determine prices. Of course, if an observer is particularly stupid he might jump to the conclusion that because the investment is now 'costless' it should also be zero-priced. Fist finishes his attack on the market by making the amazing claim that networks are not services but only the means by which goods and services are exchanged. The same logic leads us to claim that canal networks are not services because they only allow the transport of goods. One has to be a blithering economic ignoramous to draw such a conclusion.