The're is a huge difference between telcos and social media sites.

Anyone can make a new instagram... just write some code in your free time, get (very lucky, and get) some VC to throw some money into your company, and you become a new instagram... then either get forgotten in a few years, or get bought for some huge amount of money. Instagram had just 13(?) employees by the time facebook bought them (or some other very low number, i forgot).

But a telco? No way... virual operator maybe, but there's no real money in that, but just starting to build basestations is impossible, you need millions and millions to even get frequencies, and you're already late for those, and there's basically no realistic way for a new mobile operator to come to an existing market now.

T-Mobiles market cap is like 3% of Apple's. If there was ever margin to be made Apple could swoop in like it was nothing.

So, when will there be a new frequency auction for apple to get frequencies? How much does it take to get a build permits for each and every one of the new basestations needed from every local municipality (or whatever governing body gives out permits for that)? How long does it take to get permits to dig out and over all the roads and raileways to lay fiber for all those basestations?

Yes, apple has a lot of money, yes apple can buy T-mobile, but for apple to build a tower in bumfuck alabama, that'll take years and years of bureaucracy and pain, and there are a lot of bumfucks around every country.

Maybe "profit" is the wrong word. Anecdotally, the US has a lot of dedicated & spacious cell phone stores compared to other countries I've been in (where selling SIM cards is part of another store, like a 7-11 or an electronics store).

It's possible there's an extra $14/month in revenue going towards cell phones as an industry but due to the competition such as it is, it's mostly being spent on more aggressive GTM expenses.

Defining monopoly by marketshare is shallow. Best monopoly is when your customers switching costs are high. Thats why some of FAMG is with so good friends with Lawmakers. To provide political protection.

I am not from US, but what I see from my experience there is one huge problem with mergers (besides all other): too big to fail. If you become systematical player like big banks and if you intentionally or non-intentionally get in trouble. You will be bailed out, not go bankrupt. This turns on God mode for Corporations, this create intention become reckless. If big banks would not be bailled out in 2008. Most likely we would see at least some kind of fragmetation.

Still, going by that definition, changing carriers is pretty frictionless. Even if you have a contract, competitors will buy it out for you.

I always find it fascinating what monopolies are allowed in other countries. As a European I can only shake my head at the consolidation of the gaming industry right now. That would most probably not be allowed here. How can two companies buy up companies like Bungie and Activision? That's toxic to the economy imho.

American cell company workers make more than their European counterparts on gross basis. Is this adjusted for in the comparison? Cellular companies have a lot of employees and comp makes up a huge portion of their cost structure. (ATT has over 230,000, Verizon more than 130,000)

Surely one factor in this is America being significantly less densely populated than Europe? One operator that's got some popularity in my part of the middle of the country is UScellular, which fills in gaps serviced by none of the bigger companies.