Evidence since 2020 shows a clear shift toward treating core internet services as essential / critical infrastructure and subjecting large platforms to sector‑specific regulation, not just traditional antitrust, in several major jurisdictions.

1. Explicit "critical / essential infrastructure" treatment of digital services (EU)

• The EU’s revised cybersecurity framework (NIS2 Directive) classifies “digital infrastructure”—including cloud computing providers, data centers, internet exchange points, DNS providers, and public electronic communications networks—as a sector of high criticality, alongside energy, transport, banking, and health, with mandatory risk‑management and incident‑reporting obligations. (twobirds.com)
• NIS2 and its 2024 implementing rules extend similar cybersecurity and reporting requirements to online marketplaces, online search engines, and social networking platforms, treating them as critical entities or networks whose disruption has systemic impact and must be overseen by national authorities. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
  These moves are structurally analogous to how aviation, energy or transport infrastructure is regulated.

2. Sector‑specific ex ante regimes for large platforms (EU)

• The Digital Markets Act (DMA) creates an EU‑wide, ex ante regulatory regime for designated “gatekeepers” providing core platform services (search engines, app stores, social networks, video‑sharing platforms, communication apps, operating systems, ad services, etc.), imposing ongoing conduct rules and interoperability/data‑access obligations that go well beyond case‑by‑case antitrust. (en.wikipedia.org)
• The Digital Services Act (DSA) adds a parallel, risk‑based regulatory framework for “Very Large Online Platforms” and “Very Large Online Search Engines,” requiring systemic‑risk assessments (elections, public security, health, protection of minors), transparency reports, algorithmic auditing and data access for regulators and researchers. (en.wikipedia.org)
• These acts are actively enforced with investigations and large fines against Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon and others, confirming that large internet services are now under an ongoing sector‑specific regulatory regime, not just classic antitrust enforcement. (apnews.com)

3. UK: broadcast‑style regulator extended to online services

• The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 mandates that many internet services (social networks, search, user‑to‑user platforms, some porn sites) meet statutory duties of care to manage harmful and illegal content; Ofcom is empowered to fine up to 10% of global turnover or block access, much like a broadcasting and communications regulator. (en.wikipedia.org)
  This is a sector‑specific regime for core online services, analogous in structure to historic radio/TV regulation.

4. United States: partial convergence, but still mainly antitrust‑driven

• The U.S. continues to rely primarily on antitrust enforcement against dominant platforms (e.g., FTC v. Meta over social‑media monopoly; DOJ cases against Google in search and adtech), which are traditional competition‑law tools rather than a new infrastructure‑style regime. (en.wikipedia.org)
• However, legislative proposals like the Digital Platform Commission Act explicitly call for a new, independent sector‑specific regulator (an “FCC for digital platforms”) with authority to designate “systemically important digital platforms” and set ongoing rules—illustrating that policymakers increasingly conceptualize large platforms as infrastructure‑like and in need of bespoke oversight, even though these bills have not passed. (bennet.senate.gov)
• Separately, U.S. homeland‑security policy long designates Communications and Information Technology as critical infrastructure sectors, covering internet backbone and major providers, though this focuses on security/resilience more than economic conduct rules. (cisa.gov)

Assessment
By late 2025, major governments—especially in the EU and UK—do treat core internet services and infrastructure (cloud, DNS, data centers, platforms, search, social networks, marketplaces) as critical or highly critical sectors and have imposed ongoing, sector‑specific regulatory regimes on the largest platforms that resemble utility / transport / broadcasting regulation more than case‑by‑case antitrust. The U.S. has moved more slowly and remains mainly antitrust‑centric, but the conceptual shift toward utility‑style oversight is explicit in current legislative proposals.

Given that the prediction was broad (“over the coming years, governments will come to treat…”) rather than confined to one country, and that in some of the world’s most important regulatory jurisdictions this shift has clearly occurred, the prediction is best judged as broadly right, even though implementation is uneven across countries.