Anti-trust should only be concerned about consumer harm, period. The government shouldn't be in a position to decide which companies win or lose.
Your rant is only about the profit motive of private enterprises, and you think that because they are very profitable then a legal/regulatory remedy must be enforced. Only if you can demonstrate consumer harm is when you should enforce stricter options. That's what differentiates (or at least it used to) the US and EU. EU's rules try to protect industries, US rules tried to protect the consumer. One is much better than the other.
Please tell me how I would benefit from buying cell service from a local telecom provider that can't get volume discounts from Apple or Samsung? What would you do to force WalMart to give up precious shelf space to a small drink company? Would you buy a family car from a guy who opened up a little factory on the outskirts of town?