If competition is prevented from entering the market because of regulatory barriers put in place by government then a monopoly exists. But, an absence of competition, all by itself, does not constitute a monopoly.
Hypothetical situation: suppose the risks associated with a particular product or service are so extreme that only one company is willing to provide the product or service to consumers. Does the company have a monopoly? No. Why? Because there is nothing stopping other companies from competing.
A monopoly cannot exist in a free-market economy.
Who gives a rat's patoot what either of you think? Your adolescent linguistic gymnastics to come up with multiple interpretations of the word "is" is extremely boring.
None of that is an argument. Again, you seem unable to engage in civil discourse without resorting to name-calling.
Incessant repetition of this false statement like a mindless drone isn't going to make it true.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
Whine about the name-calling all you want, you haven't said anything to earn respect.