[133776] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mikea)
Thu Dec 16 18:14:55 2010
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:14:51 -0600
From: mikea <mikea@mikea.ath.cx>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9wg8DYuK0S7DWLOGgxcn8Q424gXxAeuFkwwA8@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
