So I can't possibly have any claim that it's not bias
Sure you can... just present objective information showing that the companies routinely violate agreements they entered into. If there is such proof. Otherwise, then just accept that the criticisms are indeed consumer bias: Consumers
wanting something that they aren't willing to pay the premium necessary to motivate business to provide them.
I alluded to it, I'll give you specifics. The problem as I see it is monopoly/oligopoly status of these industries.
For some of them, that's the nature of the beast. The cost of stringing coax or fiber to everyone's home, for example, makes cable television and broadband something that either the public has to pay for itself (read: taxes) or subject itself to the ramifications of leaving that remarkably high cost up to those who choose to enter the marketplace (read: accepting the impact of regulation, or accepting the impact of oligopoly). I think the problem with what you're trying to defend is that it is aiming for that consumer's free lunch (not the the whole service would be free, but rather those aspects your complaining about would be remedied without consumers paying the premium for getting what they want), and that's just not reasonable.
What I want govt to do is restore competition in these areas, and then get out of the way and let the free market work.
"Restoring competition" is not free market. So basically what I see you saying here is you want your cake and to eat it too. You literally cannot have it both ways.
IMO, that would be far better than trying to micro-manage oligopolies with regs that they will work around faster than a govt can write them.
Again, the only practicable choices are the state paying for and owning the infrastructure, or private entities doing so. If the latter (which seems to be your choice), then the only practicable choices are to either heavily regulate the suppliers or lightly regulate the suppliers. If the latter (which seems to be your choices), then that means letting them structure their service so that they earn money as much as the market will bear, or regulating them and suffering the consequences of regulation, including loss of motivation to innovate, etc.
Side-question: Have you ever served on your municipality's cable contract oversight committee?
One example I gave in another thread - when they install cable in a neighborhood, install multiple lines and allow multiple companies to compete.
What will you do to make that worth their effort? You cannot just order them to do it without it being regulation. Even with regulation, it'll have to be worthwhile for them (in other words, the pricing that you let them charge will have to justify the extra expense), or they will simply not serve that town (see recent news articles on deployment of rural broadband service).
Then talk about: Who's going to maintain those lines? How are you going to force them to without regulation? How are you going to force them to provide service quality to their competitors on par with the service they perform for themselves without regulation? And so on.
I'm all for your ideas. But call things what they are:
Regulation.
I use a point-to-point wireless for my internet - that should be offered as competition to cable in more places, but cable gets a monopoly advantage in most places.
What are you willing to pay to motivate other suppliers to make the investments necessary and the work necessary to secure the necessary licenses to operate?
One small step in mobile phones - break the connection between phones and carriers.
Regulation.
None of this bundling of 2 year contracts to get a phone that locks you in with ETFs.
Regulation.
Make it all ala-cart and month-by-month.
Regulation.
Europe got wise and mandated standard chargers for cell phones
Regulation.
... making the market a bit more free.
Incorrect. ... making the market a bit less free. More regulated. Regulated in the consumers' favor. To placate consumer bias.
Again, I'm not opposed. Just call it what it actually
is.