4 ms·

Search engine can be broken up regionally and the regional versions allowed to compete with each other globally. So Google France competes with Google Germany c

by hos234 7y ago

Search engine can be broken up regionally and the regional versions allowed to compete with each other globally. So Google France competes with Google Germany competes with Google Spain etc. This happened with Ma Bell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

vertex-four 7y ago
Yeah, and look how well that turned out - all the bits eventually merged back together to form the oligopoly you have in broadband Internet access today.
- hos234 7y ago
  Took 30 years and in that time the internet was born. Key is to keep creating conditions where they compete with each other. Nobody wins overnight if the game has good rules.
ben_w 7y ago
Would that work in this case? I’d expect that to function like a massive multi-armed bandit test, but I’d assume (without any insider knowledge) that Google already does that internally anyway? Would it be “better” (given the regulatory goals) to order Google to do XYZ and provide an audit trail to demonstrate compliance?
- hos234 7y ago
  Problem is new issues will keep cropping up every 2 days. And govt regulators have to keep reacting. Putting pressure on Google requires seriously increasing competition. Let the local units rebrand and compete against each other. Maybe even auction them off to other big players. Whatever needs to be done to even the playing field. Google need a nice kick in the ass for their own good health.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The breakup of the Bell System was a huge failure. When they were separate they never actually tried to compete with each other and then they just bought each other back up again. What actually created competition for the telephone network was the internet. Competition from cable and satellite and cellular. That's what you need. Something similar but not exactly the same, so they can each carve out a niche and provide a backstop against the most flagrant abuses but they aren't in such direct competition that they're more inclined to cooperate than compete. So that you have companies who can make choices knowing that their position is different than their competitors and the competitor can't just mirror their action to neutralize its competitive advantage, which otherwise removes any incentive to be the first to engage in pro-consumer behavior.

by hos234 7y ago

vertex-four 7y ago

Yeah, and look how well that turned out - all the bits eventually merged back together to form the oligopoly you have in broadband Internet access today.

hos234 7y ago
Took 30 years and in that time the internet was born. Key is to keep creating conditions where they compete with each other. Nobody wins overnight if the game has good rules.

ben_w 7y ago

Would that work in this case? I’d expect that to function like a massive multi-armed bandit test, but I’d assume (without any insider knowledge) that Google already does that internally anyway? Would it be “better” (given the regulatory goals) to order Google to do XYZ and provide an audit trail to demonstrate compliance?

hos234 7y ago
Problem is new issues will keep cropping up every 2 days. And govt regulators have to keep reacting. Putting pressure on Google requires seriously increasing competition. Let the local units rebrand and compete against each other. Maybe even auction them off to other big players. Whatever needs to be done to even the playing field. Google need a nice kick in the ass for their own good health.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

The breakup of the Bell System was a huge failure. When they were separate they never actually tried to compete with each other and then they just bought each other back up again. What actually created competition for the telephone network was the internet. Competition from cable and satellite and cellular. That's what you need. Something similar but not exactly the same, so they can each carve out a niche and provide a backstop against the most flagrant abuses but they aren't in such direct competition that they're more inclined to cooperate than compete. So that you have companies who can make choices knowing that their position is different than their competitors and the competitor can't just mirror their action to neutralize its competitive advantage, which otherwise removes any incentive to be the first to engage in pro-consumer behavior.