There are not enough similarities between protocols and businesses for that analogy to work or have any explanatory value.
>a dominant protocol of a certain domain where there's no other widely used alternative: TCP/IP
>a dominant business of a certain industry where there's no other widely used alternative: monopoly
I think you might be missing the point I'm making. If you carefully re-read what I wrote, I never said monopolies came without bad properties or were immune to being bad. I also never said protocols were in fact the same things as businesses. I merely pointed out a good tradeoff people aren't acknowledging: Monopolies can provide a common, standard of something which can make certain things easier (just like TCP/IP does). And that's not the same as saying: "TCP/IP comes without problems..."; "monopolies come without problems..."; "TCP/IP is a monopoly..."