This is the trickiness of language.

"Free market" originally (Adam Smith) meant "A market free from economic rent"

Free market now means "Free to charge economic rent"

"free market" is more a political slogan than an economic concept. that's why i prefer the term "fair market", which is better aligned with the underlying economic concept and conveys with it the need for a strong and independent regulatory function to rebalance concentrations of market power.

in that vein, we need to break up the three major carriers who together hold ~98% of the market (principally as a result of restricted spectrum allocation). then institute an escalating tax rate based on market (revenue) share to counteract the negative externalities[0] of concentration itself.

[0]: here's one random report (by barclays) that delves into what these negative externalities are on fair markets: https://www.cib.barclays/content/dam/barclaysmicrosites/ibpu...

This is public infrastructure, running it as a for-profit business is obviously absurd.

Corporations prefer oligopolies with clearly divided geographical/physical spheres of influence, ideally duopolies. Monopolies are possible only in dictatures, which even corporations don't want.