Note that you're explicitly making an argument that a company being "too big to fail" should require us to continue supporting their monopoly and funneling mone

Note that you're explicitly making an argument that a company being "too big to fail" should require us to continue supporting their monopoly and funneling money to them, all for the sake of "the small guy". You're right that there is a potential negative impact for direct or indirect shareholders. However, these have to be weighed against a continued cost on society (everyone and their dog overpaying for internet while getting terrible service). I don't see you taking this other side into account. It also doesn't touch on all the money that gets absorbed by various entities somewhere along the way from "customer being charged" to "small guy shareholder getting their pension". If we've determined that another system can provide a better solution in the long run, the question needs to be "how do we support people in the old system who are going to get hit by its demise", and then go about implementing the better system, instead of advocating for the rent-seeking monopolist's continued existence. Especially if we're talking about infrastructure.