4 ms·
Assuming there's a valid justification, I'd love for the SCOTUS to conclude that any service provided by a government-sanctioned monopoly (cell providers, cable
by DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
Assuming there's a valid justification, I'd love for the SCOTUS to conclude that any service provided by a government-sanctioned monopoly (cell providers, cable providers, etc.) is required to provide strong protections to customers' data.
(Yes, I realize this is pure fantasy on my part.)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rhino369 9y agoI think there is a pretty good justification for state enforced monopolies to be treated as an arm of the state. However, cell providers certainly don't qualify. They aren't a monopoly--there are at least four of them--and they aren't really government sanctioned.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y agoDoesn't the FCC grant them monopolistic use of certain frequency / power-level / location combinations?
- qq66 9y agoThe FCC auctions exclusive-use spectrum. That doesn't make them a government monopoly any more than an exclusive-use lease on a piece of land from the Department of the Interior.
- rhino369 9y agoAll property rights are a narrow monopoly. The local grocery store has a monopoly over their parcel of land, but that doesn't create a monopoly over the whole market.
- tzs 9y agoIs it really accurate to use "monopoly" for cell providers? AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon all have most of the US population covered, giving most in the US a choice of at least 3 if not 4 providers.