12 ms·

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, an

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...). But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google, because they’re better at playing that game.

the_trapper 8y ago
Don't forget Spectrum (the result of the Charter and TWC merger) as well.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Can you avoid using services that run on AWS, though? Or avoid sites that advertise and get analytics from Google? These companies are so dangerous not only because of their consumer-facing services, but the fact that they've made themselves an integral part of our online infrastructure.
- basch 8y ago
  Sure it might be hard to avoid AWS but 1) Azure is coming for it fast and 2) from a customer standpoint using AWS is pretty independent of selling products on Amazon. If amazon were deranking products whos owners had switched from aws to azure, i might have a different opinion.
- wolco 8y ago
  When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    > When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. Not really — my option is basically "indirectly support AWS" or "forego large swaths of the Internet." Site owners have to choose between directly supporting AWS, indirectly supporting AWS via intermediary services that use it, or giving up the economies of scale that AWS's dominance allows. > That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option. This is not analogous. AWS is a company. React is an open source project.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      Would anything meaningfully change if React was a paid product?
confounded 8y ago
> Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...). Is this true? It depends on your use of the internet and definitions of “worse”, but I know that both Google and Facebook have been strong opponents of state-level Internet privacy legislation. They also spend huge amounts on lobbying, SV outspending Wall Street about 2:1 for the last few years. Do telcos spend more?
- rayiner 8y ago
  Alphabet spends about 50-75% more than Verizon or Comcast on lobbying. Which is amazing considering they’re not in a regulated industry. When you’re in a regulated industry, regulators micro-manage your business so there is a lot of lobbying involved dealing with relatively mundane and uncontroversial things. Not big picture stuff, but like cities vetoing fiber nodes because they’re ugly. Tech companies don’t deal with that, so it’s amazing they manage to spend more.
  - debaserab2 8y ago
    Could the fact that they spend so much on lobbying be one of the reasons their industry is still unregulated?
    - leesec 8y ago
      Is the Pope catholic?
      - mondo9000 8y ago
        nope
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Tech companies don’t deal with that, so it’s amazing they manage to spend more. It's not really that surprising, because they're not only affected by it but on multiple fronts. There was a time when Google spent hardly anything on lobbying. Meanwhile Hollywood was promoting things like SOPA, Microsoft was at one point operating a major anti-Google lobbying campaign, ISPs want to violate network neutrality, etc. It's one thing to not want to fight, something else to not respond when provoked.
LMYahooTFY 8y ago
Sorry if I'm asking something which is obvious to most people, but is it apparent that Comcast has out lobbied FAANG? I recall Google having the highest expenditure on lobbying for one of the last few years. The point about Comcast's anticompetitive practices still holds, but not as a "they do this worse than them" IMO.
alkibiades 8y ago
that doesn’t get the headline as much. don’t worry she won’t break anything up. she just wants to stand out in primary
fanzhang 8y ago
Also, does the public have the image of Comcast and Verizon CEOs as being specific people who are really rich and dislikable? So that taking them down a notch will make the public happy? And so taking them down a notch is a good political stance? To be fair, I think there is some argument that some of the larger tech giants would benefit consumer welfare by being broken up. Facebook probably less so since people already have choice. Warren does herself no favors by using $25 billion as the threshold of a monopoly. What a real monopoly is is when there is no consumer choice at all, leading to large corporate profits that hurt consumers at the pricing level. By not using consumer choice or harm as the standard (which is what the court uses), Warren comes across (and perhaps actually intends) to be against large companies, regardless of welfare.
- mushufasa 8y ago
  In the past couple years, a new legal theory proposed that the definition of monopoloy needs to be updated for the 21st century. Instead of focusing on consumer welfare, antitrust law should focus on 'anticompetitive behavior'. In this argument, amazon is the platform through which all other online sellers go to market, like railroads in the late 19th century. Behaving as both a platform and participant is anticompetitive, regardless of whether programs like 'amazon basics' make consumers happy. NYT article about the author of the original law paper https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antit... I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but this may help explain warren's stance, which isn't directly related to consumer choice.
  - basch 8y ago
    The original paper is pretty readable, the NYT article doesnt really add anything but context. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
  - cowl 8y ago
    so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us, consumer welfare consideration and focus only on how to make it easier for businesses to screw us. Should I feel better that the business that is screwing me is a "small business" instead of a giant? is that the new standard?
twtw 8y ago
> because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than google Is that true? [1] indicates Google spent more than Comcast in lobbying in q1 2015. I have no idea how this varies quarter by quarter and since 2015, but Google spends a lot lobbying. I would not be surprised if that extends to campaign contributions as well. Google donates a ton of money to a ton of politicians. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/21/google-comcast-lobbying-soars https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/21/google-co...
- fedorareis 8y ago
  While I don’t know what Google spent their money lobbying for, so I’m not going to pick a side in my comment. I’d say the more important thing isn’t who spent the most money but what they spent it on. If for example Google spent some of that money fighting for Net Neutrality then that is better in my mind then Comcast spending most of their money fighting against it. I’m not saying this is the case or that Google has lobbied for good things. But knowing generally what they lobbied for would be a more useful piece of information.
bloorp 8y ago
A counter-argument is that even someone like you who doesn't use facebook, amazon, and google is still irrevocably affected by their power and behaviors. You seem to think you've escaped them, but you surely have a Shadow Profile in facebook, you browse websites that show you AdSense ads (google), and oh yeah, your civic institutions are manipulable via popular opinion on facebook. Hmmm, you do have a strong point about Comcast and Verizon, but I think there's a false choice in there.
- cheald 8y ago
  And how would breaking them up prevent any of that? Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on data collection, Google doesn't have a monopoly on display advertising, and Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on peer pressure.
  - emn13 8y ago
    The value and impact on commercialized surveillance depend critically on the ability to generate large databases, both on the any specific indivual, and on the the number of individuals thus affected. Breaking up dataminers probably would help. And if we take a step back: this isn't necessarily only about privacy, but about capitalism and competition. Data-miner customers, and data-miner subjects might both get a better deal if there were competition between the middle men, at least more than now.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    They have monopolies on the political leverage that comes with all of the above. Verizon and Comcast could play the same game, but they're still more about money than influence - which is why they've chosen to make their stand on killing net neutrality, not on influencing referendums and elections. FB particularly is incredibly toxic to genuine democracy - not necessarily more toxic than some of the other monsters in the mainstream media shark tank, but certainly not a company that should be allowed to run riot without oversight.
kevmo 8y ago
"But we need to do X first!" is not a good reason to not do Y, a different-but-still-good thing. All of these companies need to be broken up, and the Department of Justice Anti-Trust division has enough employees to do it. These monolithic companies are sucking up all of the power in our economy and have destroyed the competitive markets. As the Economist recently said "Profits are too high. America needs a giant dose of competition." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-good-thing https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-... Capitalism without competition isn't really capitalism, but feudalism.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Splitting up "monopolies" won't create competition, especially in the case of vertical integration. What would help competition is intellectual property reforms, deregulation, tax simplification, occupational licensing reforms, etc. But almost everyone weaving the "evil monopoly corporations" narrative explicitly ignores practical policies that address those.
  - SovietDissident 8y ago
    I agree that the primary cause of all this is government interference regarding barriers to entry. However, did the regulation help insulate these companies against competition in the first place or did they use their money and power once established to pass laws that would keep competitors at bay? Lobbying reaps disproportionate rewards---those CEOs who stick by their non-rent-seeking principles are leaving big money on the table and will likely be replaced by shareholders. (Econ Talk had a good podcast on this recently.) Regarding trust busting, it is worth noting that these tech giants give an immense amount of money and support to the left. Might as well give Warren some bipartisan support so we can thrash them a bit---it would be sweet poetic justice to attack these statist zealots with the very government power they worship.
baskint 8y ago
agree, ISPs, cable-providers and wireless carriers should also be on the top of the list. Same here, there is no alternate to Comcast in where I live offering a similar service. They have been doing very slight improvements in service while almost doubling their prices. Paying $110/month for a business line with 50 down / 10 up, while recently i was offered then refused a promotion upgrade to $140/month with 150 down / 25 up for 3 years. After three years, the pricing goes close $300. Quite deceiving pushy sales people and their offerings with reduction in current pricing. I am considered a loyal grandfathered customer, yet i am totally stuck... :(
marricks 8y ago
Why not both? Dumping on someone’s policy because you don’t who they target first doesn’t really help. God knows I’d trust her to break up ISPs before pretty much any other candidate.
- astine 8y ago
  That's a fair point, but I think that there is also a valid concern about distraction. Does focus on FAANG companies result in less attention given to the potentially more dangerous ISPs? Could the ISPs use concern about Amazon, etc as an argument that they are actually less dangerous and should be ignored?
- psadauskas 8y ago
  I'm not "dumping" on her policy, I'm dumping on her choice of targets. I'm not happy about the App Store monopoly, but I'm actually upset at Comcast's behavior in every area they do business.
  - sigmar 8y ago
    "Elizabeth Warren Slams Comcast, Wants More Antitrust Enforcement" https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Elizabeth-Warren-Slams-Comcast-Wants-More-Antitrust-Enforcement-137333 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Elizabeth-Warren-Slams-C... 2016, but still..
    - bertil 8y ago
      Has she done anything since?
      - pseudalopex 8y ago
        What actions do you expect from one legislator in a house where the controlling party has been deregulating ISPs?
        bertil 8y ago
jayess 8y ago
Because this is a political move and it is being done for political reasons.
baskint 8y ago
agree, ISPs, cable-providers and wireless carriers should also be on the top of the list. Same here, there is no alternate to Comcast in where I live offering a similar service. They have been doing very slight improvements in service while almost doubling their prices. Paying $110/month for a business line with 50 down / 10 up, while recently i was offered then refused a promotion upgrade to $140/month with 150 down / 25 up for 3 years. After three years, the pricing goes close $300. Unbelievable deceiving offerings for reduction in current pricing. Totally stuck... :(
- pitaj 8y ago
  On the other hand, the reasons that ISPs are territorial monopolies (local, state, and federal regulatory capture) are hard to address. Splitting territorial monopolies into smaller territorial monopolies is unlikely to help.
  - renholder 8y ago
    >Splitting territorial monopolies into smaller territorial monopolies is unlikely to help. It seemed have helped in the Ma Bell[0] days[1]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
    - anisppp 8y ago
      Splitting a large monopoly into smaller territorial monopolies gets you all the drawbacks of a monopoly with none of the benefits of centralization. Pretty much a total loss. Improvement in US telecom probably had more to do with demonopolization wholesale at the national level rather than the formation of the baby bells.. which pretty much all failed.
      - renholder 8y ago
        >...rather than the formation of the baby bells.. which pretty much all failed. The general premise is that the smaller companies allows competition to enter the market. It is precisely because of this competition that the smaller bells all failed - because they were still stuck in the mentality that they needn't compete, whilst also lacking the resources to drive the competition out of town (e.g.: lobbying, buy them out, etc.). They didn't control the whole chain, anymore. That's supposed to be the idyllic of the capitalist system, yeah? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian, here, but trying to understand how breaking up a monopoly, such as Bell, didn't have any direct consequences on the territorial monopolies. For example, if Bell had an agreement with 'x' area that they were the sole provider in that area, then as soon as they were no longer Bell, that monopoly agreement essentially hit dissolution, yeah? In principle, that should have an almost immediate net-positive effect on the area, I would think?
rayiner 8y ago
That odd SV myopia. The trend in broadband has been more competition. Verizon competes with Comcast in almost its entire FiOS service area. These days it also competes with cellular—15% (and growing) of households have abandoned wired broadband in favor of cellular. There are four major cellular providers. In tech, the trend has been in the other direction. If you don’t consider Sprint a viable competitor to AT&T, what does that say about Bing and the search market? If cellular isn’t competitive, what about mobile, where there is just Android and iOS?
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  You have to look at areas where Comcast is the only choice, what the prices and speeds available are there, and the prices and speeds that are suddenly available when a competitor arises. And phone service is not a viable alternative. Even 50gb (the standard cap it seems nowadays before throttling) gets you only 10-20 hours of video at high quality.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Sure, in some areas the lack of ISP competition is particularly acute. But on the flip side, lack of competition in tech is a nationwide problem. I’ve got gigabit through both Verizon and Comcast at my house. It’s much easier for me to switch between the two than for me to switch off gmail (which has years of my emails), or to switch off Facebook (which all my aunts and uncles use). As to cellular—it’s a viable alternative for lots of people. Many people don’t need more than 10-20 hours of high quality video per month. 20% of people are already smartphone-only users, and that figure is growing. At the same time, those data caps are growing. Verizon’s 5G service has no data cap. Even if there is a soft cap of a few hundred GB, that’ll be a viable wired replacement for most people. The trend in tech, by contrast, is the opposite. We’re not on the precipice of increased competition in search or mobile OSs. Indeed, with Microsoft throwing in the towel on Windows Mobile, there is less competition in that space than ever.
    - fedorareis 8y ago
      You are fortunate to be in one of the few areas where there is true ISP competition. For most of the country there is none. Yes, it may be hard to move off of gmail but it isn’t impossible unlike changing high speed internet providers for most of the country. You can leave Facebook and communicate in other ways. I’m sure your aunts and uncles have phones so you could text or call them. I don’t see how splitting up Apple or Google would increase the number of mobile OSs. There have been companies in the past that have tried building a mobile OS either for a specific phone or as an open source OS and none of them have really gained traction. There have been rumors for a couple years now of some of the phone manufacturers talking about building their own OS to use in place of android, yet those still haven’t appeared. Microsoft failed at mobile because they were too late to the party, people already knew which mobile experience they preferred.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
That's a really good point. Let's nationalize the ISPs!
- genericone 8y ago
  On the internet it's hard to tell if that is real enthusiasm or sarcasm. Enthusiasm: Telco cartels need more oversight, make them government run, so they are beholden to the people. They serve themselves at a nice profit at everyone's expense, but internet communications have become so intertwined in culture, commerce, national security, that there really is no reason they shouldn't be part of the government apparatus. Sarcasm: Government run telcos will cost taxpayers even more money, work worse than they do now, and increase government pensions to be payed out. US Internet will stagnate as a result of people getting into telco as a cushy government position.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    Enthusiasm, as a matter of fact.
will_brown 8y ago
>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. The bulk of Google’s lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I’d say Google’s far better “at playing the game” after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.
- savethefuture 8y ago
  Can you please provide source links to this 33%? I assume it is public info but where do I find that.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    Opensecrets.org will let you search public companies lobbying spend (and other info). Or you can un-ironically google “google lobbying” and find more detailed articles about Google’s lobbying published by time, fortune, Bloomberg, etc...
    - rayvy 8y ago
      By "spent more money on congress people" @psadauskas is not simply just referring to "who spent more money last year", he's implying that the foothole that a Comcast or a Verizon has in the capitol goes much further than say a Google. And that makes since right? Especially from a government's perspective. If you can be chummy with an ISP, you hardly need the help of a downstream application builder (e.g., Google). His statement still holds
- psadauskas 8y ago
  You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides. From https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ > Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spent the most on lobbying in 2014 — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the 10th biggest spender on federal lobbying that year. Impressive as that sounds, however, it still ranked behind both Comcast and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. And it seems like every dollar that Comcast spends lobbying is directed towards efforts that will have a negative impact on my life, and the lives of everyone not on Comcast's board of directors. At least with Google, sometimes our incentives align, so that's another point in favor of attempting to break up the Comcast monopoly before the Google one.
tzs 8y ago
> However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. An antitrust breakup of Comcast would be one or both of: 1. splitting off different lines of business, such as the content production parts from the physical cable service part, or 2. splitting them into different companies geographically. Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.
- sethhochberg 8y ago
  ...so maybe it is time to finally admit that ISPs are natural monopolies, just like the water company or power company, and regulate them as a utility and ensure that local municipalities who want to provide these services for their residents have a legal path to do so? The situation right now is so ridiculous that some states have laws outright barring municipal ISPs. If a breakup into regional private monopolies is the stepping stone to reducing ISP influence on government enough to get a more sane legal framework, I'll take it.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options. The first one works if you do it properly. One of the lines of business just operates the physical infrastructure. It not only doesn't provide video service, it doesn't even provide internet service -- the end user is never their customer, their only customers are third party ISPs, who all get the same terms.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    There is no "proper" way to do this. The U.K. does what you're describing, and U.S. broadband speeds blow away U.K. broadband speeds: https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-kingdom/#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-kingdom/#fixed (UK); https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2018/fixed/ https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2018/fixed/ (US). The physical infrastructure is what makes everything on top of it possible, and at the same time it is one of the most expensive pieces to build, upgrade, and maintain. There needs to be adequate returns on investment in the infrastructure, and that's hard to do in the unbundled model. If you want high-quality infrastructure, you need to let the infrastructure builder capture a sufficient portion of the value created by that infrastructure. Consider trains. Trains create value for people using the train to get around, but also value for the real estate by the train station. If you only let the train company recover from the rider, you won't incentives that reflect the true value of investing in the train. Look at Japan, where train service is exceptional. The train company gets to charge both sides. They charge fares to riders, but also are major land owners around train stations, and charge rent to the businesses who benefit from having train service near them. If you had your model in Japan, where train companies just own the tracks and get a modest fee for allowing people to use them, you would not see that kind of high-quality train service.
gottebp 8y ago
In addition: We had 27 large banks in the early 90's. These have merged into four enormous ones today [0]. We had 50 media corporations in the early 80's. They have merged into six today [1]. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-banking-oligopoly-in-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-banking-oligopoly-in-on... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
thwythwy 8y ago
"How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies?" Haha, the actual "but no, because" is that Comcast and Verizon said "why not the platforms first" in response to net neutrality. Regulating one of these industries isn't at all in any way whatsoever in a first-second relationship with doing the same to the other industry.
luckydata 8y ago
because Google/Amazon/Facebook are more consequential to our life and society. But I agree cable companies should also be looked at. TBH there's no hope competition will ever be a thing where heavy infrastructure spending is at play, those companies should be made public and the infrastructure provided for businesses by the government through fees, just like roads and other basic infra.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  You can replace Google/Amazon/Facebook in seconds. You can not change your cable provider in a large number of areas, and even many of the ones that you can, you only have 2 choices between Comcast/Verizon/ATT/Centurylink. And, miraculously, as soon as a competitor arrives, you see prices drop and speeds increase. It happened in just about every area Google fiber rolled out to. Comcast also charge $10 for an extra 50GB of data after hitting the cap, and Comcast just happens to own a major network (which if you stream your tv shows, you won't be watching). It just seems incredibly clear that Comcast and other cable companies are clearly taking advantage of their monopoly status at the expense of customers, which is exactly when trust busting is supposed to come into play.
  - taurath 8y ago
    You're both arguing like its an either-or proposition, and arguing over which one is the absolute best ensures that nothing will get done.
  - bhl 8y ago
    > You can replace Google/Amazon/Facebook in seconds. This is largely false: look at market share of all their competitors — network effects are really hard to replace.
    - bryan_w 8y ago
      People said the same thing about AOL, Yahoo, and Myspace
    - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
i_am_proteus 8y ago
What's an alternative model for telecommunications operation to what's in place today? We broke up Ma Bell, and now we're thinking about breaking up her descendants. Even if Comcast et al. get broken up, we'll probably just end up with poor customer service from the resultant components until they merge.
cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
She's called out Comcast before too — don't jump to the conclusion that someone can't chew gum and walk at the same time without at least a 10 second Google.
- gowld 8y ago
  Forgive us for taking her campaign speeches at face value. She chose to make FAG the highlight of her campaign, not Comcast.
  - cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
    Maybe rethink that acronym. I figured people would take a couple minutes to educate themselves about the candidates, but I forgot that I wasn't in my home country.
- kelnos 8y ago
  True. Another commenter linked to an article about Warren ragging on Comcast... back in 2016. What has she done about Comcast since then? Anything?
  - cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
    She's an outspoken supporter of Net Neutrality, which is definitely a stick in the eye for both Comcast and Verizon. Is there a candidate that has done more than Warren in this regard? (not criticizing, I'm legitimately curious)
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    What actions do you expect from one legislator in a house where the controlling party has been deregulating ISPs?
black-tea 8y ago
Those are hard because the are natural monopolies. In the UK it was decided to privatise the national telecom provider and open the market up to to allow other suppliers. We got one other supplier who built all their infrastructure during a few years in the 90s and only in the choicest urban areas. The old monopolist is now solely responsible for supplying all the hard to reach rural areas. The best solution is probably to accept the national monopoly and socialise the infrastructure, but like that will ever happen...
chrischen 8y ago
Saying Google == email is a bit naive. Google is search, and the internet starts with search. They definitely have a monopoly on search and it's what's essentially powering almost all of Google revenue right now.
- zip1234 8y ago
  Their revenue comes from ads, which happen to be on their search, which is used because it is the best, not because people are forced to use it.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Ad revenue is powered by the content that draws eyeballs to the ads. Ads are worthless on their own.
  - chrischen 8y ago
    If that was purely the case they wouldn’t have paid Apple and Mozilla billions to set Google as the default.
ddebernardy 8y ago
There was a recent podcast by Chris Hayes on this topic with Kashmir Hill. It's not as easy to avoid FAANG as one would expect at first glance. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-block-big-tech-kashmir-hill-podcast-transcript-ncna973201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-block-big-tech-kas...
- xster 8y ago
  Also worth noticing that Comcast owns NBCUniversal/NBC/Chris Hayes. Not saying they instructed him specifically on how to opine on this one issue but there is a general conflict of interest.
tschellenbach 8y ago
Upvoted, seriously this, all the talk about Google, Amazon, Facebook hides many of the real problems and monopolies. These 3 don't even make it to a top 100 list of problematic companies.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  By sheer company size i think you are undervaluing them.
anth_anm 8y ago
Google is effectively has monopolies on search and online advertising. They should be broken up.
xster 8y ago
Also Comcast is more politically mature and dangerous, and more capable in manufacturing consent around issues of monopoly. The average person will have an easier time understanding the concept that his favorite pundit is less discoverable on Google properties than his political opponent than the concept that Comcast owns Sky, MSNBC, Rotten Tomatoes, Universal Pictures, Telemundo, E!, Vox, The Verge and has all manners of pervasive influence in your thought.
tolstoy77 8y ago
You don't get it. She's aptly taking advantage of a liberal trend which is negative sentiment to companies causing income stratification in their respective and potential locations. She doesn't really care about the underlying cause. If that was so then your points would be valid. But look at how many news articles got published and how many people are getting excited about the thought. Being against successful technology companies is currently what liberals want and she's feeding her party.
- gowld 8y ago
  Fascinating. This implies that Facebook, Amazon, Google are hated because they pay their rank and file employees well, instead of senior management and shareholders ahoarding all the wealth like traditional big companies do.
- andrewbinstock 8y ago
  >She doesn't really care about the underlying cause. She's been calling out large companies for her whole political career, motivated by the inequity she saw in her previous career in bankruptcy law.
GeekyBear 8y ago
It's worth remembering that the career antitrust officials at the FTC felt that Google should face antitrust action back in 2012. It was the political appointees (from both parties) who shut the investigation down. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices… In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google's lobbying investment levels appear to have been quite adequate. However, I would agree that the telecomm companies are also ripe for antitrust action.
TheLuddite 8y ago
How about going after all these companies...and to make it simple - start alphabetically.
- 908087 8y ago
  So start with Alphabet?
jgamman 8y ago
actual how-about-ism detected in the wild. more of a debating trick than a comment.
ams6110 8y ago
Comcast (et. al.) monopolies are largely due to local/municipal franchise agreements. Breaking up Comcast into a bunch of little baby Comcasts would not do any good if they are still granted local monopolies by little town boards and city councils.
- romwell 8y ago
  Exactly. That's what happened to Ma Bell, and lo and behold! AT&T / Verizon still hold a large part of the country in a chokehold.
vilifiedtwin 8y ago
Just make sure they'll break up to at least two companies for any given region because otherwise you'll end up with a local monopoly which is probably even worse.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Comcast's monopoly is held in place by regulation that prevents competition, not market forces. It doesn't need to be broken up, just relax those regulations.

the_trapper 8y ago

Don't forget Spectrum (the result of the Charter and TWC merger) as well.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Can you avoid using services that run on AWS, though? Or avoid sites that advertise and get analytics from Google? These companies are so dangerous not only because of their consumer-facing services, but the fact that they've made themselves an integral part of our online infrastructure.

basch 8y ago
Sure it might be hard to avoid AWS but 1) Azure is coming for it fast and 2) from a customer standpoint using AWS is pretty independent of selling products on Amazon. If amazon were deranking products whos owners had switched from aws to azure, i might have a different opinion.
wolco 8y ago
When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. Not really — my option is basically "indirectly support AWS" or "forego large swaths of the Internet." Site owners have to choose between directly supporting AWS, indirectly supporting AWS via intermediary services that use it, or giving up the economies of scale that AWS's dominance allows. > That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option. This is not analogous. AWS is a company. React is an open source project.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Would anything meaningfully change if React was a paid product?

confounded 8y ago

> Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...). Is this true? It depends on your use of the internet and definitions of “worse”, but I know that both Google and Facebook have been strong opponents of state-level Internet privacy legislation. They also spend huge amounts on lobbying, SV outspending Wall Street about 2:1 for the last few years. Do telcos spend more?

rayiner 8y ago
Alphabet spends about 50-75% more than Verizon or Comcast on lobbying. Which is amazing considering they’re not in a regulated industry. When you’re in a regulated industry, regulators micro-manage your business so there is a lot of lobbying involved dealing with relatively mundane and uncontroversial things. Not big picture stuff, but like cities vetoing fiber nodes because they’re ugly. Tech companies don’t deal with that, so it’s amazing they manage to spend more.
- debaserab2 8y ago
  Could the fact that they spend so much on lobbying be one of the reasons their industry is still unregulated?
  - leesec 8y ago
    Is the Pope catholic?
    - mondo9000 8y ago
      nope
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Tech companies don’t deal with that, so it’s amazing they manage to spend more. It's not really that surprising, because they're not only affected by it but on multiple fronts. There was a time when Google spent hardly anything on lobbying. Meanwhile Hollywood was promoting things like SOPA, Microsoft was at one point operating a major anti-Google lobbying campaign, ISPs want to violate network neutrality, etc. It's one thing to not want to fight, something else to not respond when provoked.

LMYahooTFY 8y ago

Sorry if I'm asking something which is obvious to most people, but is it apparent that Comcast has out lobbied FAANG? I recall Google having the highest expenditure on lobbying for one of the last few years. The point about Comcast's anticompetitive practices still holds, but not as a "they do this worse than them" IMO.

alkibiades 8y ago

that doesn’t get the headline as much. don’t worry she won’t break anything up. she just wants to stand out in primary

fanzhang 8y ago

Also, does the public have the image of Comcast and Verizon CEOs as being specific people who are really rich and dislikable? So that taking them down a notch will make the public happy? And so taking them down a notch is a good political stance? To be fair, I think there is some argument that some of the larger tech giants would benefit consumer welfare by being broken up. Facebook probably less so since people already have choice. Warren does herself no favors by using $25 billion as the threshold of a monopoly. What a real monopoly is is when there is no consumer choice at all, leading to large corporate profits that hurt consumers at the pricing level. By not using consumer choice or harm as the standard (which is what the court uses), Warren comes across (and perhaps actually intends) to be against large companies, regardless of welfare.

mushufasa 8y ago
In the past couple years, a new legal theory proposed that the definition of monopoloy needs to be updated for the 21st century. Instead of focusing on consumer welfare, antitrust law should focus on 'anticompetitive behavior'. In this argument, amazon is the platform through which all other online sellers go to market, like railroads in the late 19th century. Behaving as both a platform and participant is anticompetitive, regardless of whether programs like 'amazon basics' make consumers happy. NYT article about the author of the original law paper https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antit... I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but this may help explain warren's stance, which isn't directly related to consumer choice.
- basch 8y ago
  The original paper is pretty readable, the NYT article doesnt really add anything but context. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
- cowl 8y ago
  so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us, consumer welfare consideration and focus only on how to make it easier for businesses to screw us. Should I feel better that the business that is screwing me is a "small business" instead of a giant? is that the new standard?

twtw 8y ago

> because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than google Is that true? [1] indicates Google spent more than Comcast in lobbying in q1 2015. I have no idea how this varies quarter by quarter and since 2015, but Google spends a lot lobbying. I would not be surprised if that extends to campaign contributions as well. Google donates a ton of money to a ton of politicians. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/21/google-comcast-lobbying-soars https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/21/google-co...

fedorareis 8y ago
While I don’t know what Google spent their money lobbying for, so I’m not going to pick a side in my comment. I’d say the more important thing isn’t who spent the most money but what they spent it on. If for example Google spent some of that money fighting for Net Neutrality then that is better in my mind then Comcast spending most of their money fighting against it. I’m not saying this is the case or that Google has lobbied for good things. But knowing generally what they lobbied for would be a more useful piece of information.

bloorp 8y ago

A counter-argument is that even someone like you who doesn't use facebook, amazon, and google is still irrevocably affected by their power and behaviors. You seem to think you've escaped them, but you surely have a Shadow Profile in facebook, you browse websites that show you AdSense ads (google), and oh yeah, your civic institutions are manipulable via popular opinion on facebook. Hmmm, you do have a strong point about Comcast and Verizon, but I think there's a false choice in there.

cheald 8y ago
And how would breaking them up prevent any of that? Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on data collection, Google doesn't have a monopoly on display advertising, and Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on peer pressure.
- emn13 8y ago
  The value and impact on commercialized surveillance depend critically on the ability to generate large databases, both on the any specific indivual, and on the the number of individuals thus affected. Breaking up dataminers probably would help. And if we take a step back: this isn't necessarily only about privacy, but about capitalism and competition. Data-miner customers, and data-miner subjects might both get a better deal if there were competition between the middle men, at least more than now.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  They have monopolies on the political leverage that comes with all of the above. Verizon and Comcast could play the same game, but they're still more about money than influence - which is why they've chosen to make their stand on killing net neutrality, not on influencing referendums and elections. FB particularly is incredibly toxic to genuine democracy - not necessarily more toxic than some of the other monsters in the mainstream media shark tank, but certainly not a company that should be allowed to run riot without oversight.

kevmo 8y ago

"But we need to do X first!" is not a good reason to not do Y, a different-but-still-good thing. All of these companies need to be broken up, and the Department of Justice Anti-Trust division has enough employees to do it. These monolithic companies are sucking up all of the power in our economy and have destroyed the competitive markets. As the Economist recently said "Profits are too high. America needs a giant dose of competition." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-good-thing https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-... Capitalism without competition isn't really capitalism, but feudalism.

pitaj 8y ago
Splitting up "monopolies" won't create competition, especially in the case of vertical integration. What would help competition is intellectual property reforms, deregulation, tax simplification, occupational licensing reforms, etc. But almost everyone weaving the "evil monopoly corporations" narrative explicitly ignores practical policies that address those.
- SovietDissident 8y ago
  I agree that the primary cause of all this is government interference regarding barriers to entry. However, did the regulation help insulate these companies against competition in the first place or did they use their money and power once established to pass laws that would keep competitors at bay? Lobbying reaps disproportionate rewards---those CEOs who stick by their non-rent-seeking principles are leaving big money on the table and will likely be replaced by shareholders. (Econ Talk had a good podcast on this recently.) Regarding trust busting, it is worth noting that these tech giants give an immense amount of money and support to the left. Might as well give Warren some bipartisan support so we can thrash them a bit---it would be sweet poetic justice to attack these statist zealots with the very government power they worship.

baskint 8y ago

agree, ISPs, cable-providers and wireless carriers should also be on the top of the list. Same here, there is no alternate to Comcast in where I live offering a similar service. They have been doing very slight improvements in service while almost doubling their prices. Paying $110/month for a business line with 50 down / 10 up, while recently i was offered then refused a promotion upgrade to $140/month with 150 down / 25 up for 3 years. After three years, the pricing goes close $300. Quite deceiving pushy sales people and their offerings with reduction in current pricing. I am considered a loyal grandfathered customer, yet i am totally stuck... :(

marricks 8y ago

Why not both? Dumping on someone’s policy because you don’t who they target first doesn’t really help. God knows I’d trust her to break up ISPs before pretty much any other candidate.

astine 8y ago
That's a fair point, but I think that there is also a valid concern about distraction. Does focus on FAANG companies result in less attention given to the potentially more dangerous ISPs? Could the ISPs use concern about Amazon, etc as an argument that they are actually less dangerous and should be ignored?
psadauskas 8y ago
I'm not "dumping" on her policy, I'm dumping on her choice of targets. I'm not happy about the App Store monopoly, but I'm actually upset at Comcast's behavior in every area they do business.
- sigmar 8y ago
  "Elizabeth Warren Slams Comcast, Wants More Antitrust Enforcement" https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Elizabeth-Warren-Slams-Comcast-Wants-More-Antitrust-Enforcement-137333 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Elizabeth-Warren-Slams-C... 2016, but still..
  - bertil 8y ago
    Has she done anything since?
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      What actions do you expect from one legislator in a house where the controlling party has been deregulating ISPs?
      - bertil 8y ago

jayess 8y ago

Because this is a political move and it is being done for political reasons.

baskint 8y ago

agree, ISPs, cable-providers and wireless carriers should also be on the top of the list. Same here, there is no alternate to Comcast in where I live offering a similar service. They have been doing very slight improvements in service while almost doubling their prices. Paying $110/month for a business line with 50 down / 10 up, while recently i was offered then refused a promotion upgrade to $140/month with 150 down / 25 up for 3 years. After three years, the pricing goes close $300. Unbelievable deceiving offerings for reduction in current pricing. Totally stuck... :(

pitaj 8y ago
On the other hand, the reasons that ISPs are territorial monopolies (local, state, and federal regulatory capture) are hard to address. Splitting territorial monopolies into smaller territorial monopolies is unlikely to help.
- renholder 8y ago
  >Splitting territorial monopolies into smaller territorial monopolies is unlikely to help. It seemed have helped in the Ma Bell[0] days[1]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
  - anisppp 8y ago
    Splitting a large monopoly into smaller territorial monopolies gets you all the drawbacks of a monopoly with none of the benefits of centralization. Pretty much a total loss. Improvement in US telecom probably had more to do with demonopolization wholesale at the national level rather than the formation of the baby bells.. which pretty much all failed.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >...rather than the formation of the baby bells.. which pretty much all failed. The general premise is that the smaller companies allows competition to enter the market. It is precisely because of this competition that the smaller bells all failed - because they were still stuck in the mentality that they needn't compete, whilst also lacking the resources to drive the competition out of town (e.g.: lobbying, buy them out, etc.). They didn't control the whole chain, anymore. That's supposed to be the idyllic of the capitalist system, yeah? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian, here, but trying to understand how breaking up a monopoly, such as Bell, didn't have any direct consequences on the territorial monopolies. For example, if Bell had an agreement with 'x' area that they were the sole provider in that area, then as soon as they were no longer Bell, that monopoly agreement essentially hit dissolution, yeah? In principle, that should have an almost immediate net-positive effect on the area, I would think?

rayiner 8y ago

That odd SV myopia. The trend in broadband has been more competition. Verizon competes with Comcast in almost its entire FiOS service area. These days it also competes with cellular—15% (and growing) of households have abandoned wired broadband in favor of cellular. There are four major cellular providers. In tech, the trend has been in the other direction. If you don’t consider Sprint a viable competitor to AT&T, what does that say about Bing and the search market? If cellular isn’t competitive, what about mobile, where there is just Android and iOS?

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
You have to look at areas where Comcast is the only choice, what the prices and speeds available are there, and the prices and speeds that are suddenly available when a competitor arises. And phone service is not a viable alternative. Even 50gb (the standard cap it seems nowadays before throttling) gets you only 10-20 hours of video at high quality.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Sure, in some areas the lack of ISP competition is particularly acute. But on the flip side, lack of competition in tech is a nationwide problem. I’ve got gigabit through both Verizon and Comcast at my house. It’s much easier for me to switch between the two than for me to switch off gmail (which has years of my emails), or to switch off Facebook (which all my aunts and uncles use). As to cellular—it’s a viable alternative for lots of people. Many people don’t need more than 10-20 hours of high quality video per month. 20% of people are already smartphone-only users, and that figure is growing. At the same time, those data caps are growing. Verizon’s 5G service has no data cap. Even if there is a soft cap of a few hundred GB, that’ll be a viable wired replacement for most people. The trend in tech, by contrast, is the opposite. We’re not on the precipice of increased competition in search or mobile OSs. Indeed, with Microsoft throwing in the towel on Windows Mobile, there is less competition in that space than ever.
  - fedorareis 8y ago
    You are fortunate to be in one of the few areas where there is true ISP competition. For most of the country there is none. Yes, it may be hard to move off of gmail but it isn’t impossible unlike changing high speed internet providers for most of the country. You can leave Facebook and communicate in other ways. I’m sure your aunts and uncles have phones so you could text or call them. I don’t see how splitting up Apple or Google would increase the number of mobile OSs. There have been companies in the past that have tried building a mobile OS either for a specific phone or as an open source OS and none of them have really gained traction. There have been rumors for a couple years now of some of the phone manufacturers talking about building their own OS to use in place of android, yet those still haven’t appeared. Microsoft failed at mobile because they were too late to the party, people already knew which mobile experience they preferred.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

That's a really good point. Let's nationalize the ISPs!

genericone 8y ago
On the internet it's hard to tell if that is real enthusiasm or sarcasm. Enthusiasm: Telco cartels need more oversight, make them government run, so they are beholden to the people. They serve themselves at a nice profit at everyone's expense, but internet communications have become so intertwined in culture, commerce, national security, that there really is no reason they shouldn't be part of the government apparatus. Sarcasm: Government run telcos will cost taxpayers even more money, work worse than they do now, and increase government pensions to be payed out. US Internet will stagnate as a result of people getting into telco as a cushy government position.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  Enthusiasm, as a matter of fact.

will_brown 8y ago

>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. The bulk of Google’s lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I’d say Google’s far better “at playing the game” after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.

savethefuture 8y ago
Can you please provide source links to this 33%? I assume it is public info but where do I find that.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Opensecrets.org will let you search public companies lobbying spend (and other info). Or you can un-ironically google “google lobbying” and find more detailed articles about Google’s lobbying published by time, fortune, Bloomberg, etc...
  - rayvy 8y ago
    By "spent more money on congress people" @psadauskas is not simply just referring to "who spent more money last year", he's implying that the foothole that a Comcast or a Verizon has in the capitol goes much further than say a Google. And that makes since right? Especially from a government's perspective. If you can be chummy with an ISP, you hardly need the help of a downstream application builder (e.g., Google). His statement still holds
psadauskas 8y ago
You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides. From https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ > Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spent the most on lobbying in 2014 — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the 10th biggest spender on federal lobbying that year. Impressive as that sounds, however, it still ranked behind both Comcast and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. And it seems like every dollar that Comcast spends lobbying is directed towards efforts that will have a negative impact on my life, and the lives of everyone not on Comcast's board of directors. At least with Google, sometimes our incentives align, so that's another point in favor of attempting to break up the Comcast monopoly before the Google one.

tzs 8y ago

> However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. An antitrust breakup of Comcast would be one or both of: 1. splitting off different lines of business, such as the content production parts from the physical cable service part, or 2. splitting them into different companies geographically. Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options.

sethhochberg 8y ago
...so maybe it is time to finally admit that ISPs are natural monopolies, just like the water company or power company, and regulate them as a utility and ensure that local municipalities who want to provide these services for their residents have a legal path to do so? The situation right now is so ridiculous that some states have laws outright barring municipal ISPs. If a breakup into regional private monopolies is the stepping stone to reducing ISP influence on government enough to get a more sane legal framework, I'll take it.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Neither of these would do much to increase your ISP options. The first one works if you do it properly. One of the lines of business just operates the physical infrastructure. It not only doesn't provide video service, it doesn't even provide internet service -- the end user is never their customer, their only customers are third party ISPs, who all get the same terms.
- rayiner 8y ago
  There is no "proper" way to do this. The U.K. does what you're describing, and U.S. broadband speeds blow away U.K. broadband speeds: https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-kingdom/#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-kingdom/#fixed (UK); https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2018/fixed/ https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2018/fixed/ (US). The physical infrastructure is what makes everything on top of it possible, and at the same time it is one of the most expensive pieces to build, upgrade, and maintain. There needs to be adequate returns on investment in the infrastructure, and that's hard to do in the unbundled model. If you want high-quality infrastructure, you need to let the infrastructure builder capture a sufficient portion of the value created by that infrastructure. Consider trains. Trains create value for people using the train to get around, but also value for the real estate by the train station. If you only let the train company recover from the rider, you won't incentives that reflect the true value of investing in the train. Look at Japan, where train service is exceptional. The train company gets to charge both sides. They charge fares to riders, but also are major land owners around train stations, and charge rent to the businesses who benefit from having train service near them. If you had your model in Japan, where train companies just own the tracks and get a modest fee for allowing people to use them, you would not see that kind of high-quality train service.

gottebp 8y ago

In addition: We had 27 large banks in the early 90's. These have merged into four enormous ones today [0]. We had 50 media corporations in the early 80's. They have merged into six today [1]. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-banking-oligopoly-in-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-banking-oligopoly-in-on... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

thwythwy 8y ago

"How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies?" Haha, the actual "but no, because" is that Comcast and Verizon said "why not the platforms first" in response to net neutrality. Regulating one of these industries isn't at all in any way whatsoever in a first-second relationship with doing the same to the other industry.

luckydata 8y ago

because Google/Amazon/Facebook are more consequential to our life and society. But I agree cable companies should also be looked at. TBH there's no hope competition will ever be a thing where heavy infrastructure spending is at play, those companies should be made public and the infrastructure provided for businesses by the government through fees, just like roads and other basic infra.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
You can replace Google/Amazon/Facebook in seconds. You can not change your cable provider in a large number of areas, and even many of the ones that you can, you only have 2 choices between Comcast/Verizon/ATT/Centurylink. And, miraculously, as soon as a competitor arrives, you see prices drop and speeds increase. It happened in just about every area Google fiber rolled out to. Comcast also charge $10 for an extra 50GB of data after hitting the cap, and Comcast just happens to own a major network (which if you stream your tv shows, you won't be watching). It just seems incredibly clear that Comcast and other cable companies are clearly taking advantage of their monopoly status at the expense of customers, which is exactly when trust busting is supposed to come into play.
- taurath 8y ago
  You're both arguing like its an either-or proposition, and arguing over which one is the absolute best ensures that nothing will get done.
- bhl 8y ago
  > You can replace Google/Amazon/Facebook in seconds. This is largely false: look at market share of all their competitors — network effects are really hard to replace.
  - bryan_w 8y ago
    People said the same thing about AOL, Yahoo, and Myspace
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

i_am_proteus 8y ago

What's an alternative model for telecommunications operation to what's in place today? We broke up Ma Bell, and now we're thinking about breaking up her descendants. Even if Comcast et al. get broken up, we'll probably just end up with poor customer service from the resultant components until they merge.

cooooooffffeeee 8y ago

She's called out Comcast before too — don't jump to the conclusion that someone can't chew gum and walk at the same time without at least a 10 second Google.

gowld 8y ago
Forgive us for taking her campaign speeches at face value. She chose to make FAG the highlight of her campaign, not Comcast.
- cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
  Maybe rethink that acronym. I figured people would take a couple minutes to educate themselves about the candidates, but I forgot that I wasn't in my home country.
kelnos 8y ago
True. Another commenter linked to an article about Warren ragging on Comcast... back in 2016. What has she done about Comcast since then? Anything?
- cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
  She's an outspoken supporter of Net Neutrality, which is definitely a stick in the eye for both Comcast and Verizon. Is there a candidate that has done more than Warren in this regard? (not criticizing, I'm legitimately curious)
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  What actions do you expect from one legislator in a house where the controlling party has been deregulating ISPs?

black-tea 8y ago

Those are hard because the are natural monopolies. In the UK it was decided to privatise the national telecom provider and open the market up to to allow other suppliers. We got one other supplier who built all their infrastructure during a few years in the 90s and only in the choicest urban areas. The old monopolist is now solely responsible for supplying all the hard to reach rural areas. The best solution is probably to accept the national monopoly and socialise the infrastructure, but like that will ever happen...

chrischen 8y ago

Saying Google == email is a bit naive. Google is search, and the internet starts with search. They definitely have a monopoly on search and it's what's essentially powering almost all of Google revenue right now.

zip1234 8y ago
Their revenue comes from ads, which happen to be on their search, which is used because it is the best, not because people are forced to use it.
- gowld 8y ago
  Ad revenue is powered by the content that draws eyeballs to the ads. Ads are worthless on their own.
- chrischen 8y ago
  If that was purely the case they wouldn’t have paid Apple and Mozilla billions to set Google as the default.

ddebernardy 8y ago

There was a recent podcast by Chris Hayes on this topic with Kashmir Hill. It's not as easy to avoid FAANG as one would expect at first glance. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-block-big-tech-kashmir-hill-podcast-transcript-ncna973201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-block-big-tech-kas...

xster 8y ago
Also worth noticing that Comcast owns NBCUniversal/NBC/Chris Hayes. Not saying they instructed him specifically on how to opine on this one issue but there is a general conflict of interest.

tschellenbach 8y ago

Upvoted, seriously this, all the talk about Google, Amazon, Facebook hides many of the real problems and monopolies. These 3 don't even make it to a top 100 list of problematic companies.

conanbatt 8y ago
By sheer company size i think you are undervaluing them.

anth_anm 8y ago

Google is effectively has monopolies on search and online advertising. They should be broken up.

xster 8y ago

Also Comcast is more politically mature and dangerous, and more capable in manufacturing consent around issues of monopoly. The average person will have an easier time understanding the concept that his favorite pundit is less discoverable on Google properties than his political opponent than the concept that Comcast owns Sky, MSNBC, Rotten Tomatoes, Universal Pictures, Telemundo, E!, Vox, The Verge and has all manners of pervasive influence in your thought.

tolstoy77 8y ago

You don't get it. She's aptly taking advantage of a liberal trend which is negative sentiment to companies causing income stratification in their respective and potential locations. She doesn't really care about the underlying cause. If that was so then your points would be valid. But look at how many news articles got published and how many people are getting excited about the thought. Being against successful technology companies is currently what liberals want and she's feeding her party.

gowld 8y ago
Fascinating. This implies that Facebook, Amazon, Google are hated because they pay their rank and file employees well, instead of senior management and shareholders ahoarding all the wealth like traditional big companies do.
andrewbinstock 8y ago
>She doesn't really care about the underlying cause. She's been calling out large companies for her whole political career, motivated by the inequity she saw in her previous career in bankruptcy law.

GeekyBear 8y ago

It's worth remembering that the career antitrust officials at the FTC felt that Google should face antitrust action back in 2012. It was the political appointees (from both parties) who shut the investigation down. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices… In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google's lobbying investment levels appear to have been quite adequate. However, I would agree that the telecomm companies are also ripe for antitrust action.

TheLuddite 8y ago

How about going after all these companies...and to make it simple - start alphabetically.

908087 8y ago
So start with Alphabet?

jgamman 8y ago

actual how-about-ism detected in the wild. more of a debating trick than a comment.

ams6110 8y ago

Comcast (et. al.) monopolies are largely due to local/municipal franchise agreements. Breaking up Comcast into a bunch of little baby Comcasts would not do any good if they are still granted local monopolies by little town boards and city councils.

romwell 8y ago
Exactly. That's what happened to Ma Bell, and lo and behold! AT&T / Verizon still hold a large part of the country in a chokehold.

vilifiedtwin 8y ago

Just make sure they'll break up to at least two companies for any given region because otherwise you'll end up with a local monopoly which is probably even worse.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Comcast's monopoly is held in place by regulation that prevents competition, not market forces. It doesn't need to be broken up, just relax those regulations.