3 ms·

[Deleted]

by sqdbps 9y ago

[Deleted]

adventured 9y ago
Telecom doesn't even deserve to be in that batch. A $50 or $70 cell plan is close to meaningless next to the cost of home ownership, education and healthcare. Cell plans also have not gotten more expensive over 30 years inflation adjusted. When you include what you actually get in plans today, they've gotten cheaper vs 30 or 20 years ago. Cable Internet as another example, hasn't gotten expensive out of line with inflation over the last 20 years. While simultaneously what you can do with cable Internet has dramatically increased. Those other items on the other hand, have seen cost inflation dramatically beyond other consumer goods. Telecom costs a median American $100 to $150 per month. That's more like the cost of a home insurance policy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Doesn't it seem as if, when amortized over all home residents and mobile callers, more resources would be required to build a home than to provide mobile service?
rosser 9y ago
It's not about whether big tech companies — or any companies — cause "market failure". It's whether their behavior is anti-competitive. Are they leveraging their market leadership in a way that hinders other players from participating in the market? Not just, are they making a better product, or have more users: are they interfering with other companies efforts to compete? How that question is answered regarding AmEx will shape how future similar cases, many of which will involve tech, are judged. There's no equation between them; it's just what this decision will mean.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  [Deleted]
  - rosser 9y ago
    Consumer protection isn't just about prices, and antitrust isn't just about consumer protection. In United States v. Microsoft [0], Microsoft was found to have abused its dominance as the maker of Windows to compete unfairly against Netscape, which was free (as was IE), among others. The "browser wars" was Microsoft blocking entry into a market where the price was already zero. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    Clearly businesses that accept AmEx are considered consumers for that purpose. This is not being debated here. What is being debated is if there is a two sided market (two separate groups of consumers), should we add a NEW interpretation that requires harm shown for BOTH groups of consumers rather than just ONE group of consumers. Yes, and this case was showing the price change for businesses that accept AmEx. T

[Deleted]

by sqdbps 9y ago

[Deleted]

Telecom doesn't even deserve to be in that batch. A $50 or $70 cell plan is close to meaningless next to the cost of home ownership, education and healthcare. Cell plans also have not gotten more expensive over 30 years inflation adjusted. When you include what you actually get in plans today, they've gotten cheaper vs 30 or 20 years ago. Cable Internet as another example, hasn't gotten expensive out of line with inflation over the last 20 years. While simultaneously what you can do with cable Internet has dramatically increased. Those other items on the other hand, have seen cost inflation dramatically beyond other consumer goods. Telecom costs a median American $100 to $150 per month. That's more like the cost of a home insurance policy.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 9y ago
Doesn't it seem as if, when amortized over all home residents and mobile callers, more resources would be required to build a home than to provide mobile service?

rosser 9y ago

It's not about whether big tech companies — or any companies — cause "market failure". It's whether their behavior is anti-competitive. Are they leveraging their market leadership in a way that hinders other players from participating in the market? Not just, are they making a better product, or have more users: are they interfering with other companies efforts to compete? How that question is answered regarding AmEx will shape how future similar cases, many of which will involve tech, are judged. There's no equation between them; it's just what this decision will mean.

sqdbps 9y ago
[Deleted]
- rosser 9y ago
  Consumer protection isn't just about prices, and antitrust isn't just about consumer protection. In United States v. Microsoft [0], Microsoft was found to have abused its dominance as the maker of Windows to compete unfairly against Netscape, which was free (as was IE), among others. The "browser wars" was Microsoft blocking entry into a market where the price was already zero. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Clearly businesses that accept AmEx are considered consumers for that purpose. This is not being debated here. What is being debated is if there is a two sided market (two separate groups of consumers), should we add a NEW interpretation that requires harm shown for BOTH groups of consumers rather than just ONE group of consumers. Yes, and this case was showing the price change for businesses that accept AmEx. T