not involved, not a lawyer here - there is a theory in local US law about "regulated monopoly of municipal services" .. related to the way relatively expensive infrastructure is built, who pays for that, and who has rights to revenue and who has rights to do business on the infrastructure.

It has been ruled in most places that I know of, that certain utilities like water are in this category, but also sometimes things like garbage collection. The reason is that it does cost capital to build acceptable infrastructure, and also the services are less expensive to the consumer when a single business can recoup their costs over a longer period of time.

naturally, corruption and cronyism also thrive in this environment, seeking long-term returns as vendor lock-in. The amounts of money over years, plus the security of income, can be very attractive to certain parties.

I suspect that this background affects the debate and policy, but generally, political talking points do not rely on precedent and fact, more the emotions and loyalties.. no idea on that