Easy! Through competition! If you dislike your current service, you may select another service.

In Thomas J. DiLorenzo's Myth of the Natural Monopoly, we can see many examples of competing utilities before government regulation stifled competition and limited choices.

There is no evidence at all that at the outset of public-utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly." As Harold Demsetz has pointed out: Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

Government was lobbied (as today) to prevent and stifle competition.

The history of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore is that, from its founding in 1816, it constantly struggled with new competitors. Its response was not only to try to compete in the marketplace, but also to lobby the state and local government authorities to refrain from granting corporate charters to its competitors. The company operated with economies of scale, but that did not prevent numerous competitors from cropping up. "Competition is the life of business," the Baltimore Sun editorialized in 1851 as it welcomed news of new competitors in the gas light business. The Gas Light Company of Baltimore, however, "objected to the granting of franchise rights to the new company."

This shows that government control over private services are empirically bad for consumers. It's a case of concentrated benefits, dispersed costs, and of rent seeking.

As a further empirical example of the benefit of the absence of government regulation, Somalia has the best internet in all of Africa due to its government collapse.

After the start of the civil war, various new telecommunications companies began to spring up in the country and competed to provide missing infrastructure. Somalia now offers some of the most technologically advanced and competitively priced telecommunications and internet services in the world. Funded by Somali entrepreneurs and backed by expertise from China, Korea and Europe, these nascent telecommunications firms offer affordable mobile phone and internet services that are not available in many other parts of the continent. After forming partnerships with multinational corporations such as Sprint, ITT and Telenor, these firms now offer the cheapest and clearest phone calls in Africa. These Somali telecommunication companies also provide services to every city, town and hamlet in Somalia. There are presently around 25 mainlines per 1,000 persons, and the local availability of telephone lines (tele-density) is higher than in neighboring countries; three times greater than in adjacent Ethiopia.

As an example of the various competing services available in the USA, there is

When people complain there is no choice, what they usually mean is they are afraid of change. Now that censorship is a factor in comparison shopping, they may find a slower alternative preferable to no access at all.

Here is a news segment showing the many cheaper alternative choices for internet access in a Canadian city, and an analysis with a consumer psychologist for why people do not use them more often. Some of the main reasons people do not switch to another provider over larger corporations are

Fear - they fear the unknown

Habit - they have a habit of paying their current provider

Quality - they perceive that a cheaper alternative may be lower quality

Trust institutions - they tend to trust large institutions

https://youtu.be/HlRPLBLkZK0

Personally, I believe those people deserve to pay higher prices, like a tax on the stupid.

After all, would it make sense to sell electricity at a fixed price? Where some users would use 100kwh/day, and others only use 1kwh/day, but both pay the same price?