>>2410381 lb

Very thoughtful interesting post.

There may be a problem with the proposed solution, breakup of over-large media and internet companies, however.

There's an axiom that has held true for decades. (I don't know if it's ultimately true, but it has held true so far.)

When an internet business that provides a service becomes dominant in its field, then virtually ALL the traffic goes to that dominant player. Competition occurs only for a limited period of time. Once that large player becomes the meeting ground for the majority, it sucks in the rest of the traffic.

Consider Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon as examples.

Would this have occurred without government aid and sponsorship? The theorem says it would have: that market dominance in the internet ecosystem is different than market dominance in any other field.

This topic could use further thoughtful study and consideration. If the dominance theorem is true, how can it be addressed without government intrusion to create a fairer and more balanced ecosystem that does not give massive leverage to whoever got there first?

Fines and regulation are not the answer.

Designation of services as utilities is not the answer.

Breakup is OK, but then how do you ensure it doesn't happen again?

You can be sure all the large players know this theorem and all are trying to create new playingfields where their technology will be superior and they will get there first with their innovations.

Believe me, I know. I used to work in a major technology company that understood this principle.