The "universal service" requirement is governmental protection for the incumbent.

Wrong answer again. The reason the majority of natural monopolies were established was the prolifiration of non-compatible systems.

Or are you suggesting that the requirement for universal service is natural, rather than regulatory?

One day an analyst after being impressed by the action in the trading room of what is currently known as Exxon asked his guide a question: "- Are they hedging or speculating?" His guide answered: "Yes"

Monopolies (there is nothing natural about them) are normal only when they are socially established and maintained.

Wrong answer. Natural monopoly is a term, which is a subject to definition accepted in economics, and not the interpretation offered by politicians. "Socially esablished and maintained" is a falacy subject to the interpretation offered by politicians, not accepted by economics.

Thank you governmental economic planners for the frameworks in which each one of them has evolved. As always, you know best!

Yes, in this case I clearly know better that those who started by whining about how government should let them service everywhere breaking natural monopolies, and later continued to whine that they did not understand the pricing models as their companies went belly up. Currently they are whining that the natural monopolies are to blame for their mistakes. It is, again, economics 101. It is supply and demand. Nothing more and nothing less. Availability of peering is subject to it. So is survival of companies using RED. Alex