The somewhat ironic thing is that this is literally
the core reason for the ideology of government being more hands off. Bad behavior enables competition. Google Fiber is an interesting case study. There are indeed major barriers to entry to competition in telecoms, both financial and regulatory, yet Google managed to overcome them in a variety of areas. However, after 6 years in business they only managed to obtain 0.07 million television subscribers and 0.45 million broadband subscribers. They've put all expansion plans on hold and have been downsizing current operations.
The reasons for their failure are complex (for instance they discovered that in poorer regions, families were inexplicably not even willing to sign up for the free option - they responded with grants for digital literacy) but the fundamental problem is simply that they didn't get anywhere near the marketshare they expected. So thus in spite of what every inclining would lead us to believe, people didn't really feel incentivized enough to go through the hassle of moving away from Time Warner/Comcast.
The masses move like molasses. And people only really feel incentivized to change things when actions against them become particularly onerous. I think we should not really make this sort of 'onery' unlawful, but instead embrace the positive change such negative actions can foster. Make companies consider not only profit, but ethics and consequences of unethical activity. The recent events with EA are a similar example. There are no real regulations in video games and so you ended up with EA turning a major franchise title into a burdensome 'fee-to-pay' style game and it finally resulted in real action from the consumers. Now people want to try to get laws stopping companies from including loot crates. In other words stopping companies from engaging in behavior that actually gets the masses to do the one thing that gets actual change from companies - speak with their wallet.
Granted, this is uncomfortable given the monopolistic nature of Comcast/Time Warner. If no competition does emerge then instead you're getting screwed by the one and only real option you have for service. But as I think this article is showing, so long as companies know they can get the marketshare - options will emerge. The one major condition on all this is that companies must also be allowed to fail, regardless of any possible consequences. 'Too big to fail' means 'too big to ever be held accountable' which, in turn, means 'too big to exist.'