101–110 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A monopoly regulates supply to extract more money from the consumer than a competitive market could. What's the good parts?
They can avoid unnecessary redundant infrastructure as an example. Imagine trying to dig for construction when there are 30 potential cable companies running utilities underground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twenty years ago. Please try again. I hope you're constantly held accountable for things you did decades ago.
Going to prison doesn't exempt you from the law from the rest of your life.
Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…
In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…
If you have a land line, odds are that your local phone, your long distance service, and your cell carrier are all carried by pieces of AT&T. Pieces that would have reassembled if not blocked by anti-trust. And even if your provider is actually new, they could not have come into existence without rules requiring interoperability.
Some monopolies are "natural", as in once one is established, it is hard to squeeze in on them. For example there is no point to a phone that can't call all the people you want to call. So everyone naturally gravitates to the same network. Most businesses are not natural monopolies. Just because my friends shop at Ralph's doesn't mean that I can't shop at Safeway.
Whether you have a natural monopoly isn't a question of size, it is a question of the unit economics. Retail is a notable example where your advantage as the 800 pound gorilla only goes so far. But technology has many examples where your advantage can be more lasting. (AT&T's decades long monopoly is the best example.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems unrelated. What does this have to do with net neutrality?
Fair question. IMO this is the government trying to appease the public after they refused to maintain net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support for the policy. I've edited my comment to make that clear.
Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…
Visa and Mastercard have a pretty effective duopoly, too! Their fees and chargeback procedures are a drag on the entire economy. Getting banned by them effectively kills your ability to accept payments, and many legal but politically unpopular businesses find themselves in the crosshairs.
Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is: "The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations" It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes…
I'm curious what you see as the antitrust violations that lead to high housing prices?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
> Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals "Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them? Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?
Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically, because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one.
How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, it's bullshit. Not only that, but monopolies are not a bad thing, as long as they are not government granted ones.
> monopolies are not a bad thing, as long as they are not government granted ones. I disagree. Outside of "natural monopolies", monopolies are bad things whether government-granted or not.
A simple example is that the pattern of long thin property rights needed to create a railway system completely blocks anyone from creating criss-crossing railroads that would allow them to compete. But government rules forcing the initial company to allow competitors to cross or share its railways will create competition.
Forced access to long distance telephone networks has the same effect.
In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…
Don't forget AT&T. They became a monopoly, and wiped out everyone else. Whole industries would have probably not arisen if they hadn't been blocked by anti-trust. And then they were split up. If you have a land line, odds are that your local phone, your long distance service, and your cell carrier are all carried by pieces of AT&T. Pieces that would have reassembled if not blocked by anti-trust. And even if your prov…