Don't forget opportunity cost. Sure they may be investing, but if government weren't imposing a distortion, they could be investing better.
"They could have invested better" - sure, they probably could have. However, there is no reason to believe they -would- have invested in a way that better serves their customers (or whatever 'better' means, that isn't just maintain the status quo), given they never have shown any inkling to do so in the past. Given no proposed catalyst to cause a change on their part, there is no reason to believe they would have changed; ergo, this particular change's leading to 'better' results equals a better outcome than this change not having occurred.
Interesting change of tune from our last conversation about a tremendously similar sort of thing. ;)
You would do well to learn about the dirty details of telecom subsidies, tax breaks, dirty tricks, and broken promises over the past several decades.