&gt; because your conclusion suggests further regulation.<p>no it suggests fewer regulations<p>&gt; Regulation (from government intervention) doesn&#x27;t ruin a market - bad regulation does.<p>This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing &#x27;bad communism&#x27;.<p>&gt;some governments have regulated the telecom market to increase competition.<p>Regulation increases barrier to entry and therefore can not possibly increase competition. Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention in the market.<p>&gt;the best regulations are from independent groups such as IEEE. IEC-60079<p>Im not sure if this regulation is mandated i.e. it is enforced or not, but if it isn&#x27;t then it&#x27;s not really comparable to regulation from the government.<p>&gt; Good regulation in my limited observations is very difficult.<p>Not surprising.<p>&gt;However I believe you have effectively suggested more regulation<p>It&#x27;s not. It is simply asking the holder of space to pay its rent value.<p>&gt;Any time there is a monopoly (poles in the ground), it must be controlled with appropriate regulation to ensure the system isn&#x27;t abused.<p>The only reason poles in the ground is a monopoly is because there are regulations that stop people from putting more poles in the ground. Do you suggest that the solution to regulations is more regulations?