This is what frustrated me the most with some of my friends "free market" arguments when net neutrality was in the news. I am also a believer in the invisible hand, but it doesn't work when I can literally only choose from one provider.
Politicians paid for by the incumbents.
Not everywhere though:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In...
* https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...
There is no real way "untie" this hand in this case. The regulatory pseudo-markets that governments impose are often presented as "deregulation" but they aren't that. They're just a different kind of regulation. However, both companies and politicians put forward the claim that these pseudo-markets make their players "private enterprise" and so-absolved from responsibility to the public but that's a self-serving fiction.
Some areas have so few possible customers per mile that a fiber build by the incumbent provider would not break even for decades even with an 80% take rate by every building passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
> A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. This frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity.[1] Natural monopolies were recognized as potential sources of market failure as early as the 19th century; John Stuart Mill advocated government regulation to make them serve the public good.
... and suffice it to say, I agree wit John Stuart Mill.
This is no more "opening up to the free market" than if someone owns some land and a regulator says "you have to allow other people's cattle to graze here and must charge what we consider a fair price".
--> This isn't to say free markets are the best or that we should unregulated natural monopolies in the name of private property. Rather, regulatory pseudo-markets often wind-up just as shams to allow effective monopolies without implied responsibility to the public that a regulated monopoly has.