On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13:21PM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote: > You may find that simply fewer content providers decide it's worth it to play > in that space, under those conditions, which results in fewer choices for the > consumer, and something closer to a monopoly on the available content > to be consumed. > > People *were* happy with only having three national TV networks to choose > from for their major content in the US, right? > > bar.com doesn't have to drive foo.com out of business; they just have to > outlast them in the war of attrition driven by the monopoly holder, until > bar.com decides it's no longer worth providing that content anymore. > > end game--one monopoly access provider, and one giant content source--and > a huge barrier to entry keeping anyone else from providing an alternative view > of the world.
Sometimes expressed as "It is not enough that you win; all others must fail." Treating this as a zero-sum game is not good for the end users, however good it may be for the winning enterprise. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin