“Natural Monopoly” was coined by economist, not politicians. They are not saying that monopolies are natural, rather that there are many different types of monopolies, and that natural monopolies are a particular type.
To your point about the water supply, I think you are missing the point. There are competing water firms out there (oddly, Enron was one of them) but that does not really matter. A city could have dozen water firms but only one is going to serve you. They are the sole provider to you unless you move to another town. (I would classify moving to another part of town to switch water companies as a high “transactional cost”, which is a classic sign of a monopoly)
What you want to do is pull out a book on game theory. If the stable condition of a system is to have one dominate player you have a monopoly. I will point to 19th century London. They had two private water companies, each running a separate pipe under each home. You can have competition but it is not stable in this case. One company drove the other out of business, dug themselves a deep economic moat, and reaped the profits.
For AT&T is there any particular aspect you wanted me to look at? I am assuming you are referring to MCI and the 1974 antitrust suit. Because what I take away from that is that to break a deeply entrench monopoly like AT&T you need a radical change in technology (fiber optics, digital switching equipment), government action, and 20 years. I would counter with Carlos Slim, one of the richest men of the world and while not technically a monopoly, nobody can seem to dislodge his phone operations.
For Comcast, yes, their amusement parks, tv shows, movies etc have a profit of 17%. Then look at this: http://www.cmcsa.com/annuals.c..., annual report, page 122.
Their cable operations – which is what we are talking about – has operational margins of 26%. Much fatter than the other lines of business.