That the status quo for RF spectrum is that of government granted monopoly in most of the world is not evidence that this is a necessary way to operate. In fact there have been numerous proposals to change the regulation of important RF ranges into a more typical commons based usage model. e.g. the "whitespace" wireless broadband systems that are still fighting their way through the FCC regulatory quagmire in the US.

I'd even argue that the regional monopoly system we currently have actually frequently does have to act in communal ways in the best interests of different providers across regulatory regions. People without billions of dollars on the table just aren't allowed in those conversations.

I'm not entirely sure that we have locked out people without billions of dollars. I followed closely and commented on the low power FM rollout (I managed a college radio station at the time) and though it wasn't perfect, I do feel it was a major step. It allowed many small broadcasters to enter the market that would not otherwise have had an opportunity.

I don't have anything against whitespace spectrum (though I do feel it becomes a shoving match of who has the biggest tower), but there are certain applications that demand a monopolized spectrum, such as cell phones. If providers were not able to provide national, dedicated networks, the cell phone industry as we know it could not exist. This is not to say that cell phones wouldn't exist (perhaps just a patchwork of regional providers), but the level of seamless service that consumers have come to demand would not. Even a patchwork of regional carriers would require regionalized monopolies. Why would you go to the trouble and cost of building a tower if someone can just build another, larger one next to it?