Yes it does. Monopolies don't just fill up an industry and wait for another person to roll in and provide a better service. They keep expanding, branching into other industries, setting up safeguards to stomp out competition, etc until they are broken up by an antitrust hearing.
See: Standard Oil, old AT&T, United States Steel
If that was true, there wouldn't be an entire body of studies of the subject of corporate divestiture. As I said, corporations that get too big by focusing on too many things end up too cumbersome and slow to change. They quickly lose their ability to grow and innovate because, almost as if by design, they end up being just large, stable, cash producing companies focused on doing what they are doing because it "works." Any company with a bit of venture/investor capital behind it can swoop in, try very radical and risky things, and overtake he large competitor before it knew what hit it.
See: Kodak (lost to digital), IBM (lost to generics), Microsoft (lost to Google), soon to be Apple's iPhone (quickly losing to android). Also do see Comcast (losing to FIOS, and soon ClearWire).
Everything you described involved a technology shift. What about commodities, where monopolies really matter? I doubt someone will invent an iron2.0. Monopolies are far more destructive when their influence allows them to soak up resources and access to them.