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 mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin