31–40 of 748 posts
How exactly is Google.com different from a phone book in 1990? Phone books, to my knowledge, were not prohibited from advertising Southwestern Bell or Ameritech junk at the beginning, they were just incentivized not to do so because selling ads was more profitable.
So why aren’t we doing the same thing to Comcast again?
Comcast just lacks Google's PR flair, and doesn't have an army of paid lobbying organizations entirely focused around making them look like a public good. (And yes, TechDirt is one of these paid organizations.)
For this reason, it's going to be difficult to argue this case in the affirmative when google.com, bing.com, and duckduckgo.com are exactly as far away from the end-user in terms of "digital distance."
How can something on the internet be a common carrier when the internet itself is not a common carrier?
Interesting approach, especially given that they don't seem to be concerned about having internet service providers declared public utilities.
especially given that they don't seem to be concerned about having internet service providers declared public utilities. Which is why it will obviously fail at actually doing anything useful. However, the intended purpose may not be so much to do anything useful, as it is to score some points for incumbent politicians. In that, it could succeed brilliantly. It's actually a very smart move if you consider the politica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty much impossible to function in modern society without an email address that you can rely on.
But Google isn't the only provider of email addresses. In contrast, water utilities typically hold monopoly over their region. EDIT: Many people are replying with some variant that the problem is that Google can block the email account that people have tied to their financial and government services. But the same is true of any other email provider. If Google is somehow turned into a public utility, how does that sol…
Well, a public utility also doesn't have the right to do this: "You did something wrong, we won't tell you what it was, there's no chance of appeal, and you are now banned from receiving water service again, ever, for the rest of your life, no matter where you move. And don't try moving in with someone else who's still receiving service, because they'll get banned too."
This is a direct result of their monopoly, which is why Google should be broken up. Because they have such a huge monopoly, they can afford to ignore customers and have a draconian approach to people, and can get away with it. If there were better competition, they wouldn't have been able to ignore their customers. Breaking them up will alleviate this by ensuring that each company needs to be able to survive on their…
I don't get where this bizarre belief that "moar free market" will solve issues. Let's setup proper legal framework where these companies must have a good reason to terminate contract instead - and properly explain it with the ability to appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a direct result of their monopoly, which is why Google should be broken up. Because they have such a huge monopoly, they can afford to ignore customers and have a draconian approach to people, and can get away with it. If there were better competition, they wouldn't have been able to ignore their customers. Breaking them up will alleviate this by ensuring that each company needs to be able to survive on their…
Except that this behaviour shows up in non-monopolistic markets as well. Apple does it. PayPal does it. Heck, our European banks have started doing it despite there being ample competition. What the competition did, is made sure EVERY competing entity does that because it's cheaper and costs were brought down with race to the bottom. I don't get where this bizarre belief that "moar free market" will solve issues. Let…
Well, a public utility also doesn't have the right to do this: "You did something wrong, we won't tell you what it was, there's no chance of appeal, and you are now banned from receiving water service again, ever, for the rest of your life, no matter where you move. And don't try moving in with someone else who's still receiving service, because they'll get banned too."
I feel like this is becoming a thing with banks now, too.
So why aren’t we doing the same thing to Comcast again?
Comcast isn't a global monopoly. It's a small regional monopoly in some rural areas where it's mostly unprofitable for other ISPs to build out. Comcast just lacks Google's PR flair, and doesn't have an army of paid lobbying organizations entirely focused around making them look like a public good. (And yes, TechDirt is one of these paid organizations.)
EDIT: not even trying to bicker, there are multiple comments calling Google a monopoly, but I have no idea what market they dominate, or perhaps I’m misunderstanding what I monopoly is.