Think about the implications of that for a moment.
First, yes 'local' utilities are monopolies, but they are "regulated" monopolies. Microsoft is not regulated.
Second, If I'm a power producer in say, Illinois, and I want to sell my power to Virgina, I don't have PG&E in California controlling my opportunity in Virgnia. Nor is a California power producer implementing standards in Virginia which an Illinois Power producer must meet.
Conversley, let's take Microsoft vs Netscape. There is no 'local' concept...the market is global. Microsoft made changes to its OS to make it difficult for Netscape to adapt and forced distributors (like Dell) to supply Windows with IE only.
When you're just a competitor, all that is ok, it's just business.
But when you become a monopoly, the law says you cannot use your monply power in the same way. Before you were a monopoly you could run somebody out of business, legally - the assumption is the playing field is level.
But after you become a monoply (an unregulated one), the reality is the playing field is not level, and different laws apply to monopolies...laws that Microsoft (somewhat inanely) defied.
The playing field has never been level and to assume so is being utopian. Furthermore, who do you think should level the field? The government? They make decisions based on who is the highest bidder. Not very level in that case wouldn't you say?