> In this case, competition is the problem not the solution. It makes no sense to build out massive cellular networks in triplicate. I agree with you, but I al

> In this case, competition is the problem not the solution. It makes no sense to build out massive cellular networks in triplicate. I agree with you, but I also think that it makes no sense to grant access to the airwaves at the same time as granting a monopoly to all services that might be performed over those airwaves. I think that this effectively extends the monopoly into other areas that are not natural. In the UK, the incumbent telecoms company (BT) is required by the regulator to provide access to its lines to companies that compete with them. The (regulatory) agreed pricing is relatively close to BT's own cost structure (95 percentile billing, etc). This is just for the part that is the natural monopoly - primarily the last mile. The competition provide their own Internet backhaul, and sometimes the links to the exchanges too. I think this works remarkably well - the market has real competition in providing all of the other parts of Internet service (customer service, peering quality, how different ISPs end up managing their bandwidth, etc). With no history, I think it might be even better to limit companies granted rights to the natural monopoly area to only providing services to other businesses for access only. For example: a company granted access to cellphone frequencies might only be permitted to provide transit to other companies, rather than to retail customers directly. I think that by replacing the irrational retail customers with more rational businesses, we'd get better efficiency, real competition and prices closer to real cost.