> But in 2020, wireless ISP work great wherever they're not regulated away.

Because in CURRENT_YEAR we don't have to worry about rain fade or quirks of local terrain or unintended interference?

That's quite a big statement to make, generalized over the whole world like that.

> One big problem with regulations is that even if they're beneficial when enacted, they will remain in force for many decades after the underlying reality has changed.

We tend to avoid principles-based regulation in the US, but it's not destiny that regulations remain the same forever, even with our system. We certainly don't have to choose between that and not having any regulations at all (which isn't even an option when you're talking about radio spectrum, or use of wires at the last mile, or whatever).

My impression is that regulations turn to legacy status more often than not. Not that I've conducted any scientific study to back that up.

For radio spectrum you don't need any regulations or regulators. Just establish that radio frequencies in a certain area can be owned, and use general property right rules.

It's not really my area, but I feel like the distinction you're making between "regulations" and "general property right rules" is a bit like the distinction that is made at times between "fees" and "taxes."

To me, "regulations" either means there is a regulator directly issuing rules and orders to the regulated industry, or a legislature manages the rule set through occasional legislation.

This is quite different from laws protecting property, where all the state does is settle property disputes.

In slogan form, one is "rule of man" vs "rule of law".

I think I mentioned it upthread but principles-based regulation can at times be a nice middle ground.