In Broadband Economy, Does Every Winner Have a Loser?

Economics has in the past been called the dismal science because of a fear that it describes a "zero sum" world where demand for resources will outstrip supply. That "Malthusian" perspective seems not to have such analytic power these days, in large part because human ingenuity has consequences. 

People are able to come up with solutions for new problems in ways that are not, in fact, zero sum. A new analysis of the economic impact of broadband suggests lots of ways people have saved money by using the Internet. 

But one might also note that major economic and technological innovations, while positive for society overall, rarely are "cost-less" in the sense of having no "losers." In fact, markets work because suppliers of products people prefer more survive, while suppliers of products less desired do not survive. 

To the extent that the Internet allows more efficiency in just about any endeavor of human life, that efficiency means there is less room for  "inefficiency" on the supply side of life. But one person's cost is another person's revenue. 

So broadband access, though not a zero sum game, also means there are some losers. Virtually any part of a supply chain involving "distribution" will see distribution costs decline, but that also means income of distributors declines.

Production is affected as well, though. That is easy to see in the media business, for example. Broadband does, one might argue, have powerful and positive social and economic impact. But there also are winners and losers. The correspondence is not one-to-one. There likely is no zero sum outcome. But that doesn't mean all we have is winners. We have losers as well.