> Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.

The first one works if you do it properly. One of the lines of business just operates the physical infrastructure. It not only doesn't provide video service, it doesn't even provide internet service -- the end user is never their customer, their only customers are third party ISPs, who all get the same terms.

...so maybe it is time to finally admit that ISPs are natural monopolies, just like the water company or power company, and regulate them as a utility and ensure that local municipalities who want to provide these services for their residents have a legal path to do so?

The situation right now is so ridiculous that some states have laws outright barring municipal ISPs. If a breakup into regional private monopolies is the stepping stone to reducing ISP influence on government enough to get a more sane legal framework, I'll take it.

More effective than breaking them up would be imposing regulation. Force the incumbents to allow 3rd parties to use their infrastructure at a regulated wholesale rate, and then compete on service.

In Canada, there's a bunch of smaller cable resellers. For instance, Shaw does cable/phone/tv and also has some wifi infrastructure deals with various commercial businesses, and provides "Shaw Go Wifi" access to internet subscribers.

In my local area, we also have LightSpeed which resells access to Shaw for a cheaper rate, but you need to buy your own modem, and there's no wifi access around town. Trade-offs, and a slightly more healthy marketplace.