This seems easy fixable by subsidizing fares to unpopular areas, financed by a tax in fares in popular areas.

Governments tend to think in terms of Bans and Mandates, rather than taxes and subsidies.

The result is poorer, more expensive services, limited to ancient business models.

More specifically: Lobbyists tend to pursue an agenda of bans and mandates, and so long as your political system is dependent on the interests of lobbyists and their associated campaign financing, these goals will often be achieved.

I guess having followed US politics for the last two decades has taught me nothing.

I'm sure it's all attributable to "The Government" being sinister and evil.

My point is that you have no basis for your claim re: lobbyists and campaign funding. Use of government-granted monopolies to achieve particular ends predates modern media, and campaign funding was a much less pivotal issue back in the day when all the money in the world wouldn't buy you anything more than a newspaper ad.

Lobbyists have been around since there've been people to lobby, but the more money is involved in getting elected, the more acute the problem becomes.

You can't honestly think the billion dollars required to become president doesn't come with strings attached.

Money buys you influence. Don't think advertising is entirely in terms of media. Campaigns need a lot of people involved, and many of those people have to get paid. Modern media just means you need to spend even more money than you did before.