5 ms·

When companies like AT&T are big enough to override very publicly supported law, we need to get back to breaking them up. 83% support equal access to content w

When companies like AT&T are big enough to override very publicly supported law, we need to get back to breaking them up. 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. [1] AT&T == Anti-trust time. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/ http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...

craftyguy 8y ago
Yea, except it's not a permanent solution to the problem. Ma Bell was shattered into pieces, but those pieces have reformed and are, arguably, more powerful now due to bonehead SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Solutions don’t need to be permanent if they can be repeated. A truly permanent solution would be to add them to the proverbial list of “they’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes,” but I’d rather see less permanent, less drastic solutions that still yield the desired results.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    They can only be repeated with a competent DOJ/administration. Else, they will be able to stick around much longer and dig in deeper. And if the system allows them to influence the administration, then the solution (or option) is permanently destroyed.
    - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
      In the absence of a competent system there is no solution, permanent or otherwise. It’s like trying to secure your laptop against someone who has physical possession of it; you can’t, they own it now.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  It was a fertile field they found there following the temporary dissolution of Ma. GOP on the left of me, Neo-Liberal Democrats to the right, stuck in the middle with you!
- drawkbox 8y ago
  Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it isn't always beneficial to do that. Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in the 90s due to Windows, because they were slowed down slightly it allowed Google, Apple, Amazon and others to crop up to compete. I'd argue we got something out of the Microsoft monopoly (desktop + internet prevalence), something out of the first AT&T monopoly (telephone lines, software, Bell Labs, C++, modern applications) and more. When they are slowed down the competition also brings benefits in Apple + Google for mobile for instance and Google + Amazon for cloud computing. Microsoft became a competitor again and it works better for consumers and developers now. It is definitely time to put some speed bumps on AT&T unless they want to actually increase network capabilities rather than slow them down. ISPs need to be innovative and expanding networks otherwise more competition should be added. A truly competitive ISP would not be so anti net neutrality, they would win with product improvements. Monopolies or big fish can be beneficial, until they start limiting other competitive threats through use of their power/size rather than better products and consumer benefits. When they use their size to bring benefits they bide their time and deserve the top slot and privileged market position. When they get lazy/anti-innovative and they use their size to hold back others, then it is time to hold them back a bit to increase competition.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself in commercial is when safety is a concern
    - MetricMike 8y ago
      There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  In what sense is AT&T a monopoly anything close to what Ma Bell was in its glory days?
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    It's not too far off. See the following infographic: http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-history/ http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-histo... The only baby-Bells missing from that merger chart are NYNEX and Bell Atlantic which combined and became Verizon.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      That has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Anti-trust law is not about the geographic spread of a company. What services are they a monopoly in? How are they abusing that monopoly power? What would be different if there were more competitors, or if they weren’t allowed to make those mergers?
      - bogomipz 8y ago
        Nothing in my comment had anything to do with "geographic spread" neither did I state they were a monopoly. My comment clearly states "it's not too far off." Anti-trust law concerns the ability of a company to constrain competition. AT&T as the largest satellite provider(DirecTV) the seconds largest Cell Phone provider by customers and wireless spectrum holdings and now also owner of one of the largest media/content companies is very much in a position to "constrain competition. This potential to constrain competition was at the root of their failed $39 billion bid to buy T-Mobile 7 years ago.
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  The permanent solution is never "one and done". The solution is keeping on top of these things. Just like every generation has to figure out growing up for themselves. Every generation has to rein in abuses, or suffer the consequences. Good governance is not a set of laws. It's governing. Admittedly, right now, things are looking a little grim, in the U.S. Then again, half to two-thirds of the eligible population doesn't vote.
- shabba238032 8y ago
  there are no permanent solutions don't let perfect become the enemy of the good.
Karishma1234 8y ago
What you are saying is when your hired goon fails to steal your neighbours cows for you, the cops should do it for you. ATT has not bombed Sacramento to achieve this, they have achieved this fair and square the same way farmers have managed to get some water from the greedy politicians over last 5 years or the same way teachers union in California has managed to suck our blood. This language of "break them up" is a violent language of thugs and should not have a place on a civilised forum such as this. (Not to mention as Mr/s. Dang would inform you it is not good idea to start political fights. But he also happens to be selective and likely he will give you an upvote and the warning to me) > 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. Does not matter. That is irrelevant. Most people voted for Hillary but Trump is the president. You have to look at the rules of the game. Are those 83% people willing to change their vote in favour of a pro-net-neutrality politician during elections ? If not then even if that number is 100% it is irrelevant.
- socceroos 8y ago
  You're right, the number is irrelevant. But it shouldn't be, should it. There is no set of politicians or party to turn to that the people could be confident are morally sound. The unfortunate nature of hunting power is the scum that it attracts.
phobosdeimos 8y ago
I would suggest the US crack down on lobbying and take a look at how politicians finance their election campaigns. Money corrupts.
- socceroos 8y ago
  This is it. All we can do is dissuade and encourage.

craftyguy 8y ago

Yea, except it's not a permanent solution to the problem. Ma Bell was shattered into pieces, but those pieces have reformed and are, arguably, more powerful now due to bonehead SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Solutions don’t need to be permanent if they can be repeated. A truly permanent solution would be to add them to the proverbial list of “they’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes,” but I’d rather see less permanent, less drastic solutions that still yield the desired results.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  They can only be repeated with a competent DOJ/administration. Else, they will be able to stick around much longer and dig in deeper. And if the system allows them to influence the administration, then the solution (or option) is permanently destroyed.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    In the absence of a competent system there is no solution, permanent or otherwise. It’s like trying to secure your laptop against someone who has physical possession of it; you can’t, they own it now.
wavefunction 8y ago
It was a fertile field they found there following the temporary dissolution of Ma. GOP on the left of me, Neo-Liberal Democrats to the right, stuck in the middle with you!
drawkbox 8y ago
Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it isn't always beneficial to do that. Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in the 90s due to Windows, because they were slowed down slightly it allowed Google, Apple, Amazon and others to crop up to compete. I'd argue we got something out of the Microsoft monopoly (desktop + internet prevalence), something out of the first AT&T monopoly (telephone lines, software, Bell Labs, C++, modern applications) and more. When they are slowed down the competition also brings benefits in Apple + Google for mobile for instance and Google + Amazon for cloud computing. Microsoft became a competitor again and it works better for consumers and developers now. It is definitely time to put some speed bumps on AT&T unless they want to actually increase network capabilities rather than slow them down. ISPs need to be innovative and expanding networks otherwise more competition should be added. A truly competitive ISP would not be so anti net neutrality, they would win with product improvements. Monopolies or big fish can be beneficial, until they start limiting other competitive threats through use of their power/size rather than better products and consumer benefits. When they use their size to bring benefits they bide their time and deserve the top slot and privileged market position. When they get lazy/anti-innovative and they use their size to hold back others, then it is time to hold them back a bit to increase competition.
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself in commercial is when safety is a concern
  - MetricMike 8y ago
    There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.
marcoperaza 8y ago
In what sense is AT&T a monopoly anything close to what Ma Bell was in its glory days?
- bogomipz 8y ago
  It's not too far off. See the following infographic: http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-history/ http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-histo... The only baby-Bells missing from that merger chart are NYNEX and Bell Atlantic which combined and became Verizon.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    That has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Anti-trust law is not about the geographic spread of a company. What services are they a monopoly in? How are they abusing that monopoly power? What would be different if there were more competitors, or if they weren’t allowed to make those mergers?
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      Nothing in my comment had anything to do with "geographic spread" neither did I state they were a monopoly. My comment clearly states "it's not too far off." Anti-trust law concerns the ability of a company to constrain competition. AT&T as the largest satellite provider(DirecTV) the seconds largest Cell Phone provider by customers and wireless spectrum holdings and now also owner of one of the largest media/content companies is very much in a position to "constrain competition. This potential to constrain competition was at the root of their failed $39 billion bid to buy T-Mobile 7 years ago.
pasbesoin 8y ago
The permanent solution is never "one and done". The solution is keeping on top of these things. Just like every generation has to figure out growing up for themselves. Every generation has to rein in abuses, or suffer the consequences. Good governance is not a set of laws. It's governing. Admittedly, right now, things are looking a little grim, in the U.S. Then again, half to two-thirds of the eligible population doesn't vote.
shabba238032 8y ago
there are no permanent solutions don't let perfect become the enemy of the good.

Karishma1234 8y ago

What you are saying is when your hired goon fails to steal your neighbours cows for you, the cops should do it for you. ATT has not bombed Sacramento to achieve this, they have achieved this fair and square the same way farmers have managed to get some water from the greedy politicians over last 5 years or the same way teachers union in California has managed to suck our blood. This language of "break them up" is a violent language of thugs and should not have a place on a civilised forum such as this. (Not to mention as Mr/s. Dang would inform you it is not good idea to start political fights. But he also happens to be selective and likely he will give you an upvote and the warning to me) > 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. Does not matter. That is irrelevant. Most people voted for Hillary but Trump is the president. You have to look at the rules of the game. Are those 83% people willing to change their vote in favour of a pro-net-neutrality politician during elections ? If not then even if that number is 100% it is irrelevant.

socceroos 8y ago
You're right, the number is irrelevant. But it shouldn't be, should it. There is no set of politicians or party to turn to that the people could be confident are morally sound. The unfortunate nature of hunting power is the scum that it attracts.

phobosdeimos 8y ago

I would suggest the US crack down on lobbying and take a look at how politicians finance their election campaigns. Money corrupts.

socceroos 8y ago
This is it. All we can do is dissuade and encourage.