>>It's hard to see any dominant position gained under this environment as a "natural monopoly".<<
As I pointed out in the grandparent post
Wikipedia has a *formal* definition for "natural monopoly." It wasn't done in a vacuum, and refers to such papers as "On the Proper Cost Tests for Natural Monopoly in a Multiproduct Industry, American Economic Review 67, 808-22." It has to do with economics forces in play (not how anybody "feels" about the economic forces play), and how "easy" it is to "displace" a potential or actual "monopolist" under whatever economic forces are in play.
I'm not quite sure why folks here insist that such definition must be outlawed, because they don't happen to like the use of the word "natural" in that context. It seems kind of like folks insisting that whatever it is that gay people do can't be "natural." Well, maybe some people can't call it natural, if they are not gay. My advice would be to get over it.
Wally Bass