3 ms·

Bell was a real monopoly - as in, it was literally illegal to start a competing phone company. This is much different from "monopoly" with quotes, as in "gee wh

Bell was a real monopoly - as in, it was literally illegal to start a competing phone company. This is much different from "monopoly" with quotes, as in "gee whiz they seem so big and popular it must be a monopoly".

tgb 6y ago
I don't see the relevance here. Google knows that both sense of "monopoly" can and have been regulated by the government since Standard Oil was broken up. Hence the threat of regulation did not stop Google from investing in innovation.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Does the comparison to Standard Oil stand scrutiny? The case against Standard Oil wasn't merely that they were popular. After all, kerosene is an undifferentiated commodity where consumers have no preference other than price. The case against Standard Oil was that they held such a breadth of natural resources (which are exclusive; no two parties can pump oil the same barrel of crude oil), and capital-intensive assets such as pipelines and railroads where Standard Oil was bribing the operators to get them to charge higher rates to their competitors. So what's the comparable unfair practice? You believe Google is paying Level3 under the table to make sure all its competitors pay more for network transit?
  - tgb 6y ago
    The comparison holds up if the claim, as stickfigure made, was that the relevant factor is whether or not there is a legally-enforced monopoly. US vs Microsoft shows that the factors you cite aren't necessary either.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Microsoft closely parallels Standard Oil in this regard. Microsoft was forcing Dell to charge a higher price for competing operating systems (in effect, Microsoft got paid $100 every time Dell shipped a computer with OS/2 or whatever). I can easily see how the first party forcing the second party to charge a higher rate to the third party is abusive.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I think we need a new "antitrust" law that says companies can grow too big and influential. That's one of the big downfalls of capitalism, without restraints it can easily allow corporations and people to accumulate and hoard too much wealth and influence at which point it becomes a hindrance to society as a whole rather than a positive

tgb 6y ago

I don't see the relevance here. Google knows that both sense of "monopoly" can and have been regulated by the government since Standard Oil was broken up. Hence the threat of regulation did not stop Google from investing in innovation.

jeffbee 6y ago
Does the comparison to Standard Oil stand scrutiny? The case against Standard Oil wasn't merely that they were popular. After all, kerosene is an undifferentiated commodity where consumers have no preference other than price. The case against Standard Oil was that they held such a breadth of natural resources (which are exclusive; no two parties can pump oil the same barrel of crude oil), and capital-intensive assets such as pipelines and railroads where Standard Oil was bribing the operators to get them to charge higher rates to their competitors. So what's the comparable unfair practice? You believe Google is paying Level3 under the table to make sure all its competitors pay more for network transit?
- tgb 6y ago
  The comparison holds up if the claim, as stickfigure made, was that the relevant factor is whether or not there is a legally-enforced monopoly. US vs Microsoft shows that the factors you cite aren't necessary either.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Microsoft closely parallels Standard Oil in this regard. Microsoft was forcing Dell to charge a higher price for competing operating systems (in effect, Microsoft got paid $100 every time Dell shipped a computer with OS/2 or whatever). I can easily see how the first party forcing the second party to charge a higher rate to the third party is abusive.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I think we need a new "antitrust" law that says companies can grow too big and influential. That's one of the big downfalls of capitalism, without restraints it can easily allow corporations and people to accumulate and hoard too much wealth and influence at which point it becomes a hindrance to society as a whole rather than a positive