Generally, utility-like regulation is appropriate where markets would otherwise fail. The most obvious case is natural monopolies, where it's economically inefficient to have more than one provider. The distribution network of an electric utility is a good example - it wouldn't make sense to have more than one set of electric wires strung in the neighborhood (though this set could deliver electrons produced by more than one generator).

The trouble with one provider is they tend to exploit market power. So regulation endeavors to capture the efficiencies while limiting abuses of market power. The utility gets a rate of return and some stability, but not the ability to gouge.

Broadband connectivity could be a similar scenario. In some neighborhoods, there is more than one option currently (e.g., the cable co and Verizon Fios). But I've heard Fios has struggled to achieve decent returns. The high fixed costs of laying a lot of fiber and optical gear are hurting. Part of the rationale once was to protect the $35/mo telephone revenue that cable was displacing. But those rates have taken a big hit and some are completely eliminating home #s.

Satellite has always struggled to compete given latency and bandwidth issues. It's really just a rural solution of last resort.

I am skeptical terrestrial wireless will be a complete substitute for wired broaddband anytime soon. I've looked at transmission capacities in the past and they struggle with today's usage patterns, which are video-heavy. Video is a tremendous bandwidth hog, especially hi def and 4k. It's unlikely terrestrial wireless firms will offer packages that are uncapped or have high enough caps for most consumers at a competitive price.

At one point mesh networks looked like a potential solution to this, but there are challenges there as well.