4 ms·

Lina Khan still wasting her time on big tech (to prove out her paper) while other industries like this, glasses etc slip out from under her

rayiner 2y ago
Monopolization in big tech is far more economically significant. The Big 3 cell carriers make $250 billion in annual wireless revenues combined. Their profit margin is about 15%. Google alone makes $300 billion in revenue, and has a net profit margin of 25-30%. Meta’s revenue is $130 billion and its profit margins are even higher, over 30%. The tech industry is extracting vastly more monopoly profits from consumers than any other industry.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  Better at extracting monopoly profits from consumers or from the advertisers?
- tgma 2y ago
  Most of Google revenue is not made from US consumer. Telecom revenue on the other hand is mostly attributable to the US consumer, whom FTC is responsible to protect.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Half of Google’s revenue is from the U.S.
    - tgma 2y ago
      Used to be more like 40% US. I suspect it is closer to but still less than half now with stronger USD and US GDP growth relative to RoW.
- bydo 2y ago
  Monopoly is about choice, not revenue. I don't care how little Comcast or Spectrum makes compared to Google or Facebook when I'm forced to use their terrible service because there are no other options available.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    In antitrust law, the key focus is on the excess profits companies can obtain from consumers through their monopolistic conduct. Profits is more important to that analysis than choice. Tech companies are in a state of monopolistic competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition. There’s theoretical choices, but because tech companies have big moats, those choices are largely imaginary and the companies enjoy significant monopolistic pricing power. Telecommunications service, by contrast, is largely fungible. Even a small amount of competition is sufficient to curb the ability of providers to exert significant monopoly power to achieve excess profits.
- KorematsuFredt 2y ago
  No one is forced to use G or M but they make better products. It is not monopoly. There are excellent alternatives available very easily. Comcast, ATT are different. You simply dont have much of a choice even in cities meant for internet. San Jose has like 1Gbps ATT and 100Mbps Comcast as the only options.
hollerith 2y ago
Officials tend to focus on internet services because they are a potent way to influence public opinion and consequently election outcomes.
averysmallbird 2y ago
Telecom mergers are handled by the FCC and DOJ, not the FTC, and the FTC has been bringing plenty of other industries than tech.
KorematsuFredt 2y ago
Lina Khan is the enabler of these things.
willio58 2y ago
Lina Khan has honestly been doing an amazing job in her position. She's taking on the amazons of the world and you're complaining she isn't doing enough? In a perfect world we could just clone her so she could also break up these other industries.
- throwaway-blaze 2y ago
  She's single-handedly responsible for denying public markets investors the ability to reap the benefits (by investing in) from all of the hot tech startups that are too-small to go public but would have been attractive acquisition candidates in the past. Now Meta/GOOG/MSFT/AAPL/AMZN know they cannot acquire anything large, so these companies either sell to PE or continue to raise from huge late-stage funds. I don't like a lot of what "big tech" does but this isn't a good situation either.

rayiner 2y ago

Monopolization in big tech is far more economically significant. The Big 3 cell carriers make $250 billion in annual wireless revenues combined. Their profit margin is about 15%. Google alone makes $300 billion in revenue, and has a net profit margin of 25-30%. Meta’s revenue is $130 billion and its profit margins are even higher, over 30%. The tech industry is extracting vastly more monopoly profits from consumers than any other industry.

Scoundreller 2y ago
Better at extracting monopoly profits from consumers or from the advertisers?
tgma 2y ago
Most of Google revenue is not made from US consumer. Telecom revenue on the other hand is mostly attributable to the US consumer, whom FTC is responsible to protect.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Half of Google’s revenue is from the U.S.
  - tgma 2y ago
    Used to be more like 40% US. I suspect it is closer to but still less than half now with stronger USD and US GDP growth relative to RoW.
bydo 2y ago
Monopoly is about choice, not revenue. I don't care how little Comcast or Spectrum makes compared to Google or Facebook when I'm forced to use their terrible service because there are no other options available.
- rayiner 2y ago
  In antitrust law, the key focus is on the excess profits companies can obtain from consumers through their monopolistic conduct. Profits is more important to that analysis than choice. Tech companies are in a state of monopolistic competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition. There’s theoretical choices, but because tech companies have big moats, those choices are largely imaginary and the companies enjoy significant monopolistic pricing power. Telecommunications service, by contrast, is largely fungible. Even a small amount of competition is sufficient to curb the ability of providers to exert significant monopoly power to achieve excess profits.
KorematsuFredt 2y ago
No one is forced to use G or M but they make better products. It is not monopoly. There are excellent alternatives available very easily. Comcast, ATT are different. You simply dont have much of a choice even in cities meant for internet. San Jose has like 1Gbps ATT and 100Mbps Comcast as the only options.

hollerith 2y ago

Officials tend to focus on internet services because they are a potent way to influence public opinion and consequently election outcomes.

averysmallbird 2y ago

Telecom mergers are handled by the FCC and DOJ, not the FTC, and the FTC has been bringing plenty of other industries than tech.

KorematsuFredt 2y ago

Lina Khan is the enabler of these things.

willio58 2y ago

Lina Khan has honestly been doing an amazing job in her position. She's taking on the amazons of the world and you're complaining she isn't doing enough? In a perfect world we could just clone her so she could also break up these other industries.

throwaway-blaze 2y ago
She's single-handedly responsible for denying public markets investors the ability to reap the benefits (by investing in) from all of the hot tech startups that are too-small to go public but would have been attractive acquisition candidates in the past. Now Meta/GOOG/MSFT/AAPL/AMZN know they cannot acquire anything large, so these companies either sell to PE or continue to raise from huge late-stage funds. I don't like a lot of what "big tech" does but this isn't a good situation either.