That is an odd analogy, and I don't think infrastructure providers making all the money is "the natural state of things".
The people actually building the infrastructure (Android) arent't making much any money with it, while those using it (Samsung) are. That is how its supposed to work; if power companies and utilities had been able to extract all the profit from manufacturing companies and discriminate against specific ones or have the ability to simply deny necessary upgrades, we would still be using oil lights.
I also respectfully disagree on the "very expensive" part. Internet access is one of the cheapest basic services, trivial to scale and the variable costs are basically zero. There is no inherent difficulty in transporting bits! Consider other infrastructure. Providing reliable electricity is very difficult (you need to balance demand and supply at all times), there is a very harsh regulatory environment that is constantly changing (in some countries, pocos need to prioritize renewable energy and pay guaranteed prices to customers inserting it), the hardware necessary is copper-heavy and poses significant reliability and safety issues.
Meanwhile, we are being reluctant to regulate internet providers to the point where they are the fast, dumb pipe we need, because lawmakers are clueless how this internet thing works (the 'cloud' isn't helping) and internet providers have this dream where they are the premier entertainment and media source (wakeup; YouTube and Netflix exist).