Why are telecommunication services a natural monopoly?
Even if you don't trust the theoretical hand-waving, the fact that the market is the way it is should provide all the proof you need (see: Google Fiber). The "problem" with utility markets is so thoroughly established by precedent that Adam Smith himself used them in Wealth of Nations as an example of an economic sector where markets don't automagically "do the right thing." There are a number of policy approaches to solving the problem, some of which are more "hands on" than others, but it's not a problem that goes away on its own.
It's still vulnerable to technological disruption though! Microwave/mm-wave internet service, which has tiny infrastructure requirements by comparison, might be our salvation if it can be made good enough. That's a difficult problem, but maybe not so difficult as trying to get ISPs regulated as utilities. Google is right to focus their efforts on it.
We can keep hoping for a disruptive technology to wipe the slate clean and give us new players/niches, but infrastructure "disruption" on that sort of scale still tends to lend too much advantage to existing players in the infrastructure game: the natural place to add microwave beaming is between existing cell towers, the satellite internet providers too mostly get bought up by existing infrastructure companies like AT&T and Verizon to shore up portfolios and make FCC mandates that they at least pretend to offer broadband options in rural areas, etc.
Beyond that, too, spectrum is finite and in spectrum auctions tends to favor existing players with war chests over disruptive newcomers. Outside of electromagnetic spectrum hopes, you are back to figuring out how to get physical wires from A to B and dealing with existing physical wire owners (the Google Fiber issues today). Something truly disruptive would be finding a way to do something crazy like IP over Quantum Teleportation and you can't exactly plan for when a breakthrough like that might (or might never) occur.
All of which tl;dr is that technological disruption is more often than not a false hope we tend to use to avoid properly regulating today's technology (or more cynically: yesterday's ancient infrastructure fiefdoms) because it may need to compete with some future technology that never actually arrives.
Maybe I was down voted because my comment was too brief. In the U.S. companies bid on and purchase wireless spectrum which they then own in perpetuity.