You clearly state you prefer software publishers support only Red Hat, because your cost might be slightly higher if they supported other distributions.
You say you will only look at alternatives after Red Hat raises their costs over your threshold of pain.
When does a monopoly raise prices above the threshold of pain? Only after there are no longer viable alternatives. When you still had alternatives to chose from, Microsoft Office was cheap, and Microsoft wasn't at all picky about licensing. Now it's $500 per seat (and going up) and they are plenty picky about licensing. Are you starting to investigate alternatives now?
Most purchasers chose the path of least resistance. "Microsoft is causing problems for WordPerfect, so it's a little more hassle to use, so lets just go with Microsoft and avoid the hassle". Save a little now, pay a lot later.
Yes, there were alternatives to SCO. Esix Unix was better, far more complete, very standards compliant, and cost a lot less, but software vendors refused to support it, and customers said, "We are HAPPY paying $3000 for the disk and then $2K per year per server. JEEZ! This stuff is saving me FAR more as I pull processing off of Unisys", so soon there were no alternatives.
To prevent monopoly, customers must actually buy alternatives and demand support. Yes, I know, it may be a little more hassle now, and cost a touch more, now, but it'll save a lot in the future. Yes, I used Esix Unix, and had several clients who did, but most took the path of least resistance, paying a lot more for SCO.
If commercial Linux does not end up with a Red Hat monopoly, it will have a former monopolist to thank for that. IBM has a very intimate understanding of the mechanics of monopoly, and has stated firmly they want to see at least two Linux distributions with international support structures, but no more than three. United Linux will probably stay with us, because IBM will make sure people buy it.