Since any service is an improvement over no service at all, this MIGHT improve service if it really does encourage the "monopolies" to begin serving areas which currently have no service.
Speaking as someone who can get neither cable nor DSL (and doesn't consider satellite a viable option), I get a little tired of my friends who currently have access to both cable and DSL whining about their choices being limited. At this point, I'd be pretty damn happy if I could get just one option.
I'm not convinced that legislation favoring the "big guys" is necessarily the answer, but until I have at least one vendor offering to sell me broadband, I'm not going to whine about legislation limiting other ISPs' ability to undercut the big guys in the profitable urban markets, unless those ISPs also want to sell their service to me.
I would be happier if the legislation actually provided some incentives, or even requirements, to the big guys to expand service in exchange for strangling the competition, instead of vague suggestions that they'll feel more free to expand if competition isn't a threat.
For example, my telephone service is provided by Bell South. Bell South won't sell me DSL. From a technical point of view, I don't know what would be required for them to do so. I've heard rumors that maybe DSL equipment could be added to that SLC box at the end of my road. It would be nice to see a ruling that Bell South doesn't have to give competitors access to their lines IF AND WHEN they offer DSL to all their residential phone customers.