In Finland the grocery market is even more damaged. We have TWO duopolistic chains and Lidl picking up perhaps 5-10%. Groceries in Finland are 7.8% higher than Sweden and 15.7% higher than Germany. Sure we are a nation of lumberjacks out in the sticks but the fact that Lidl can sell for less than the two giants while having to arrange probably ALL their own distribution and importing from Germany makes me think the duopoly has artificially high prices. It would be interesting to see if one or the other will undercut Lidl on low priced items to steal customers back into the fold. In all fairness for a CEO not to form a duopoly would be silly, the only thing that prevents it from being in your face is legislation. There is a very high barrier to entry for micro and small enterprise and very few ever get to challenge large incumbents. I agree that much of the problem of gaining new competitors is caused by bad legislation but eliminating all regulation will favour the largest in most battles. Restrictions on these banks could be somewhat arbitrary and onerous. They might be forbidden to list or trade on stock exchanges (that may crash so not safe anyway) and cannot have institutional investors that will probably have links to Blackrock. They might be geographically constrained to not have branches more than two state lines apart. Limiting how big or small their trust networks are may also be prudent. Break up the Bell before it grows too big. Bonus assignment: Someone who knows net theory and has the time might find out what is the largest number of states that are no more than two borders away in the USA and EU. Does the coast count as a single point?