Hindsight is 20/20, but I suspect that the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984 should have been along service lines, not geographic lines. One company should have been given control of the physical wires, and that's all they do---they have have the right-of-ways to run cable and maintain the physical structure. And they have a mandate to provide service to any company that wants to provide a service (route data), and the other company provides the service, but they aren't in a monopolistic position.

What's the natural monopoly here? The physical infrastructure. What isn't? The service---phone, television, data. Could this still be done? Yes, but I suspect the politics would be worse today than in 1984.

It's a hard problem that states and localities should sort out. High fixed costs, regional monopolies, etc. I get it.

I'm just saying that almost this entire, complex discussion can be reduced to that crucial point.