7 ms·

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

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.
    - blackflame7001 8y ago
      So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.
      - Karishma1234 8y ago
        > Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry. Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger. Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.
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.

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.
  - blackflame7001 8y ago
    So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
      > Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry. Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger. Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.

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.