I don't disagree but the movement has been to deregulate these exact examples. A customer can literally buy electricity from a provider one thousand miles away at a cheaper rate if they live in a deregulated area.
I don't think that's exactly right. Energy prices are broken down to generation and transmissions costs. The transmission costs remain regulated, but generation can charge a market price.
Regulated transmission prevents other providers from creating redundant infrastructure in a deregulated environment. Deregulation is possible not because of regulated infrastructure but in spite of it. I.e. Deregulation could still exist without regulated transmission but it was deemed to be in the public interest to reduce redundant infrastructure.
Incidentally, the 'public interest' has been one of the claims of moving to a deregulated market, with the thought that this would provide lower utility costs. However, this hasn't always worked out:
