OK, here's are semantical difference: Monopoly rates are not the value of product to the consumer. If I need something you have to permit be to get into a business that has a real net present value of +$100, your product's value to me is $100, even if it costs just a nickel to produce.
In a competitive market, it might cost someone else (say, someone named Dave) 20 cents to sell produce your product. Therefore, you can maintain a monopoly in a competitive market, so long as you sell for not more than 20 cents, and there is no fracturing of the market into niches.
Monopoly pricing occurs when the government determines that duplication of production capacity is not beneficial. The government may step in and say, "look, we you need widgets to maintain your factory. There is a shortage of widgets, and the last thing we need is two factories consuming all our widgets. We'll pass a law saying only you can consume all these widgets, but in exchange, you have to agree to charge no more than 25 cents."
Thus, the value of your product to me is $100. But the monopoly rates are only 25 cents. If, and only if, a competitor emerges, your product's value to me will fall to the price that competitor charges. What I was observing is that government would never let you charge me $100 for a 25-cent product.
Toilet seats and hammers...