6 ms·

I'll just leave this here, but it does need a little updating. It shows how little regulations have had an effect. http://i.imgur.com/US2mwgq.jpg http://i.imgu

• mturmon 10y ago
  That was my immediate reaction as well, but as pointed out nearby (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762415), Time Warner Cable != Time Warner, Inc., so this is not a telecom merger. The regulations did have an effect in the 1980s, of course. That was back when there was only one company that did long distance service, and (earlier) you rented, not owned, your home telephone. So long-distance calls were very expensive, and a Big Deal, and you had only one or two phones in your house, because they were so expensive.
  • caminante 10y ago
    (off topic) WSJ had a hilarious writeup last summer about the confusion [0]. Basically, the CEO of Time Warner continued to get hate mail from Time Warner Cable customers post spin-off. Time Warner Cable has since been acquired by Charter for $60B with a brand phase out. [0] http://on.wsj.com/2dVLQM5 http://on.wsj.com/2dVLQM5
• rayiner 10y ago
  The regulations were never designed to prevent mergers. That's not unique to telecom--it's true across the economy.
  • cfmcdonald 10y ago
    They certainly were. That only changed in 1996, when the Telecom act of that year removed regulations around long-distance and local carrier mergers created by the break-up and also instructed the FCC to remove other similar barriers that were no longer "in the public interest". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...
• denzil_correa 10y ago
  It would be the right time to plug in this as well then. http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg
  • merb 10y ago
    from all of these nestle is probably the worst.
  • Asooka 10y ago
    Knowing how glacially software companies merge with each other and how their internal processes basically remain as they were originally, I'm wondering exactly how much actual control the parent companies are exerting on physical operations as opposed to branding and taking a cut of the profits.
  • kuschku 10y ago
    And that doesn't even have the companies operating on national scale each. For example Dr Oetker owns half if the European food industry
• bobajeff 10y ago
  The only problem that I see is that our government didn't breakup companies more often. At&t needs to be broken up by region again. Along with Monsanto, Walmart, Comcast, Verizon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
  • gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    I see Apple is missing from your list.
    • bobajeff 10y ago
      As far as I can tell their market control is limited to just their devices which though still significant isn't enough for a breakup to make sense to me. That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
      • amelius 10y ago
        Apple's vertical integration could be broken up, so other companies can take advantage of it.
      • oldmanjay 10y ago
        Walmart isn't even close to market control, so what's the reasoning there? Just too big for you personally?
        • bobajeff 10y ago
          Walmart yeilds quite a bit of market control. I'm not sure on the specifics though but they are a powerful retail force that's wrapped around many lives in the U.S.
          • newjersey 10y ago
            While I am sympathetic to the issue, I'm concerned about how we can achieve our goals within the limits of the legal framework. Should we break up Kelly services or Robert half staffing? Should we break up GitHub?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• jellicle 10y ago
  It shows much regulations have had an effect, and it shows how policy changes in government (from anti-monopoly, to pro-monopoly) can have a major effect on the corporate landscape.
• oldmanjay 10y ago
  It also shows that trying to dictate the shape of the market from above is folly
• spynxic 10y ago
  Perhaps the policies in place for governing corporate influence over particular market sectors are fundamentally flawed. It would seem so since there must be an active body to oversee corporate control.