Why do you think that being for expansion in one area means you're for expansion in all areas?
Because (D) wants expansion in area 1, but not area 2. They get expansion in area 1.
Next election, (R) wins and wants to expand in area 2, and they expand in area 2.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And if anyone proposes to cut Area 1 or 2, they are accused of "Tossing grandma off a cliff" or "Not caring about security" or "hating children" or "killing kittens and puppies"
The result is the same.
As for ISP, the problem is limited last mile options. Nothing more, nothing less. By removing the last mile from the equation, from "Comcast Franchise agreement" to Municipally owned infrastructure, we'd be pushing competition away from last mile to a CO-LO, and actually be able to increase competition, without increasing regulations.