So in regard to the right of a given private corporation to profit limitlessly from its infrastructural "investments" in a developing market that could only have expanded as it did with the legislative support and involvement of the federal government, I'd like to point out the following small but relevent detail:

The federal subsidization of market-expansion and infrastructure-development enjoyed by the teleco's (especially early on) was in most instances granted *conditionally* with understanding the (in many cases explicit/contractual) that the investments thus enabled actually produce infrastructure adequate to meet certain performance mandates within specified periods. You can read up on the details yourself for specifics, but suffice it to say that given the extraordinary, almost fraudulent degree of failure by the largest corporate recipients of targeted government aid to fulfill their side of such agreements, I don't think it is beyond the appropriate role of the same legislature that made possible their success to respond to the unfulfilled obligations with profit-limiting measures if doing so would be even slightly beneficial to taxpayers in anyway.

…Just my $.02.

-emily