No. The bottom line is that the baby Bells now operate in a competitive world. You don't need them at all anymore. You may get all services -- broadband and local -- from a cable TV provider. There's a lot of fibre out there that can serve end points. In other words, the photographer is NOT the only planning service available.
It is true the baby Bells have a monopoly on traditional POTS service. But that is (and always has been) the least profitable part of the business. The more profitable aspects -- switching, premium services, long distance, equipment, are fully competitive. In other words, even if someone uses Bell as connection, a heavy user with a combined $100 communications bill would pay only $5 to the Bell company, the rest would go to others. That's not a very powerful market position nor very profitable.
All of the arguments in this theme falsely assume the baby Bells have a monopoly as they did in the old days.
If the baby Bells have something to offer the market place (by virtue of their long experience in communications services), the market place should not be denied their services. AT&T tried to compete in the market place and failed and the company no longer exists. The regulators didn't decide this, the market place and AT&T's abilities and offerings worked it out.
If Verizon can outdo Comcast in Internet service (for example), why shouldn't we consumers have that benefit?