Ok, thanks for the clarification. But I still don't quite agree.
Well, let me comment on this "natural monopoly". Basically, it's net worth has declined quite a bit and this must be recognized by regulators. Here's why:
1) Wireless and cable competition. Very simply, it is not a "monopoly" anymore so it should not be treated as such. (The past status doesn't matter, "today" is what counts). Many people use cable and/or wireless for their plain telephone service needs as well as advanced communications. It appears this is growing. 2) The cost of entry to provide landline service was once enormous. With fibre and modern techniques, it is relatively easy to do so. Our cable company ran coax than later fibre quickly throughout our area. (Indeed, cable TV needs some competition on their rates.) If the traditional landline company raises its rates too much a cable company will be able to come in and undercut it. They're doing that now. 3) Cost of landline maintenance: The regulated side comes with many burdens. They must provide service to deadbeats and to all areas, even those where there isn't much money to be made. So, the asset of an established customer base, like deadbeats or grandparents with little phone usage, isn't worth very much in the high tech world of big profits.Also, the old conduits and copper lines need maintenance, if the copper is old the insulation may be rotting and worthless. So this "asset" is of very limited value as well.
Let's remember that in the full regulated days the Bell System was accepted as a steady safe stock. But that world no longer exists. Investors expect big returns and landline companies, saddled with low end regulated customers and burdens, have trouble meeting those demands.
4) In essence, the Bell System world ended in 1983. Now it's competitors want it both ways: They want to be free to enter into Bell's old markets -- even at a discount -- but Bell still has to carry the regulatory burden.To put it another way, I suspect VOIP providers can't wait to offer service in wealthy areas, but probably don't even enter poor areas. Bell successors are forced to serve and take what comes along with it.
I like the commentators (like Newsweek) that suggested customers keep a landline as an emergency spare if they get VOIP. That's bad for two reasons: 1) it gives the Bell companies the scraps of little business while the juicy profits go to the new guys. 2) It means the new guys don't have to upgrade their systems to maximum reliability--as the old Bell companies offer* -- because they have old Bell being their safety shield. That's not fair to Bell -- to maintain capacity for someone ELSE's troubles.
*When there was a nasty power failure or other disaster, only the traditional landlines kept working. The CO's had heavy construction and diesel generators and batteries. The wireless and cable companies had very little capacity for emergency traffic AND we learned they had very little battery backup in their intermediate relay stations and towers. (My cable has no such backup in power failures; my VOIP will be dead in a power failure). [public replies, please]