Martin Kettle uses the example of competetive directory enquiries, as opposed to the old BT monopoly, to show that:

Because sometimes monopolies are better for the customer.

Now he’s right of course, sometimes monopolies are indeed better for the customer. We have only one National Grid and I’m not aware of anyone who thinks there should be more. Certain things like network effects and economies of scale (Microsoft being an example) might mean that their 90% control of the desktop is a good thing….although there there are indeed people who argue about it. I’m not sure that his example of directory enquiries actually stands up to this analysis though…it’s much too close to that slightly absurd line that too much choice is bad for us. It also appears that he is himself deficient in searching through the choices available:

This didn’t surprise me:
unable to remember a 118, I’ve long been using the efficient but
expensive and easy-to-remember internet directory 192.com.

This is different from the service that BT provides for free is it?