3 ms·
That’s a very interesting example you choose. I wonder if you’d have a choice of mobile phones today had the US government not exercised its anti-monopoly autho
by jeramey 4y ago
That’s a very interesting example you choose. I wonder if you’d have a choice of mobile phones today had the US government not exercised its anti-monopoly authority with the Kingsbury Commitment and later the break-up of the Bell System.
Prior to 1983, nearly everyone in the US and Canada had to lease their physical telephones (wired and wireless) from Ma Bell, and if you didn’t like the phone Ma Bell gave you, tough luck. Your other choice was to simply not have access to the PSTN.
- scarface74 4y agoThe government granted AT&T its monopoly before taking it away. https://www.encyclopedia.com/finance/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/government-granted-monopoly https://www.encyclopedia.com/finance/encyclopedias-almanacs-...
- jeramey 4y agoThe US government accepted AT&T’s natural monopoly of telephone communications (this is the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913 mentioned in the link you provide) in exchange for their divestment of their control of other forms of telecommunication—namely telegraph communications via their controlling interest in Western Union—which was the other major important telecommunication technology at the time in the early 20th century. I can only imagine what things might be like if AT&T was allowed to keep an unchallenged natural monopoly over all forms of telecommunication and further allowed to hold that monopoly to the present day.
- scarface74 4y agoWe already know what would happen, landlines would still become irrelevant as cellular took over. There are and were still local “natural monopolies” with phone services.