There are domains where, if left unregulated, the expected payoff is asymmetrically positive. The Silicon Valley tech ecosystem is one of those. Investors bleed money spreading relatively small investments across a pool of companies, but every now and then, boom you get a Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc, and it makes orders of magnitude more money than was lost.
There are other domains where if left unregulated the expected payoff is asymmetrically negative. Banking appears to be the primary example here. You can make your ~5% yearly return relatively safely, but making significantly more than that can only be done with exposure to a much higher risk of a major collapse.
If you start at the Great Depression and work backwards in time, there's a financial crisis every 20 or 30 years for over a century. It wasn't until we figured out how and gained the political will to regulate the industry that that was mitigated.
Utilities may be another example. I grew up in the Southeast where electric is heavily regulated and boring, but always stable and predictable. It was interesting to witness the California energy debacle with Enron a decade ago, and compare the two.
Stable, predictable, and boring is the ideal state for systems like electricity generation/distribution and the monetary system. Underlie much of the rest of the economy and infrastructure? Check. Expected payoff is negative? Check. Then regulate for stability and robustness. Such states don't tend to naturally emerge from deregulation, except in the form of monopoly or trust, and then you've got innovation-crushing rent-seeking and anti-competitive behavior to deal with.
Now I'm not certain which domain the telcom system falls under, it doesn't seem vulnerable to the kind of major collapse enabled by deregulation in electricy and banking. However, it does have a history of monopoly and rent-seeking behavior that I think behooves us not to discount or ignore.