3 ms·

1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to all

1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to allow access only on special plans. 3. The magic of the free market and competition did not step them 4. Special regulations about not blocking third party apps could have stopped them. This issue is always framed as some lofty philosophical debate about "free market vs. regulation!!!" by companies. In reality its perfectly clear that neither extreme works or even exists currently, just a precarious balance we as consumers have to protect that companies are always trying to erode.

rayiner 9y ago
It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The U.S. economy is characterized by oligopolies, and I think there is a rational position that they should all be subject to regulation. I happen to disagree, but it's internally consistent. What's not internally consistent is to say that cellular is so concentrated that it requires regulation, then to say that there is plenty of competition in smart phones or search. This is not "whataboutism." People who think that search or smart phones shouldn't be regulated, I think, generally have a notion of how awful government regulation can be. So they say that we should only do it when the concentration, and thus the potential for abuse, exceeds a certain, high, threshold. Their view is that the threshold is not exceeded in smart phones, or search, or parcels. This is, I think, a really common view. Under that view, it's relevant that the market concentration in cellular is comparable to those other industries.
    - throwaway2048 9y ago
      The demand for consistency across all examples before any action is taken is a very common canard to block progress on an issue pretty much forever. Imagine if criminal law worked this way, where nobody could be punished unless everyone that violated a law was punished....
    - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
      Im all for regulation in any industry when companies do bad things and people don't have recourse. If Google started manipulating search in a way that really hurt and people did not have recourse, great regulate the f* out of them. Same goes for smart phones. Its not inconsistent because my guiding principle is not "enough competition/too much concentration in this industry or not?", it is "are their behaviors significantly hurting consumers or not".

rayiner 9y ago

It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The U.S. economy is characterized by oligopolies, and I think there is a rational position that they should all be subject to regulation. I happen to disagree, but it's internally consistent. What's not internally consistent is to say that cellular is so concentrated that it requires regulation, then to say that there is plenty of competition in smart phones or search. This is not "whataboutism." People who think that search or smart phones shouldn't be regulated, I think, generally have a notion of how awful government regulation can be. So they say that we should only do it when the concentration, and thus the potential for abuse, exceeds a certain, high, threshold. Their view is that the threshold is not exceeded in smart phones, or search, or parcels. This is, I think, a really common view. Under that view, it's relevant that the market concentration in cellular is comparable to those other industries.
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    The demand for consistency across all examples before any action is taken is a very common canard to block progress on an issue pretty much forever. Imagine if criminal law worked this way, where nobody could be punished unless everyone that violated a law was punished....
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    Im all for regulation in any industry when companies do bad things and people don't have recourse. If Google started manipulating search in a way that really hurt and people did not have recourse, great regulate the f* out of them. Same goes for smart phones. Its not inconsistent because my guiding principle is not "enough competition/too much concentration in this industry or not?", it is "are their behaviors significantly hurting consumers or not".