We tried that in the netherlands. Our approach did not work out that well. In all cases there's the maintainer of the hardware (cable) and a lot of "providers" on that hardware.

I'm not well informed enough to know why, but in all cases (cable, railroad, powerlines, ether frequencies) the system devolved into a state where the "provider" linked to the hardware maintainer is the dominant player still.

I'm not syaing it can't work, just that over here it didn't really work.

It worked amazingly in Japan

Practically overnight (metaphorically) it went from only metered dial up or expensive isdn to ultra fast dsl. There was huge competition mostly lead by SoftBank Japan. The actually handed out routers at subway station exits. Every time their competitors including the old monopoly matched their speed they'd double it. It was awesome to watch

Why does one provider get a privileged relationship with the maintainer? I'm surprised that in all those industries there was never a complete division of control.

I used to live in a town with a similar system, which worked great. I suppose the difference was that the maintainer (the municipality power company) was never an ISP themselves.

That's what anti monopoly laws are for. You can either provide infrastructure, or sell to customers not both.

I'm kinda bummed to hear that. I have mentioned how it's done in the Netherlands on several occasions. I thought it had worked - sad it didn't.