- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Anti-trust laws have been used for AT&T, MS, Std Oil. Why not Google, Facebook, etc.?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:15 pm
These companies absolutely dominate online advertising, and this power affects publishing and other public communication.
Is it reasonable to pursue anti-trust action with them?
Is it reasonable to pursue anti-trust action with them?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:19 pm to Ag Zwin
Yes it is reasonable. I'd love it if we could end media consolidation as well, as I think that is a net negative.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:21 pm to Ag Zwin
Those anti-trust laws are nothing but a shibboleth. When the chips are down, they only stall things for so long. The long term trend continues to be to increased collusion and consolidation. The number of companies responsible for delivering information, communication, and entertainment in this country continues to plummet. If one added up the parent companies of 90% of terrestrial radio stations, newspapers, and cable tv networks, plus the largest search engines, internet service providers, cable companies, mobile phone carriers, record labels, and movie studios, you're looking at not even 2 dozen companies, and every year, that number seems to drop.
Regulation always favors the big and trends towards the few.
Regulation always favors the big and trends towards the few.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:24 pm to Ag Zwin
I don't think advertising factors in anti-trust laws.
Must dominate an industry, like Walgreens and CVS, (20,000 total stores does not create an anti-trust violation, under AG Sessions). The third competitor, Rite-Aide, has 2200 stores.
Must dominate an industry, like Walgreens and CVS, (20,000 total stores does not create an anti-trust violation, under AG Sessions). The third competitor, Rite-Aide, has 2200 stores.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:26 pm to kingbob
I think it worked with Standard Oil and AT&To. In the case of the latter, it's just that this industry has completely changed now.
Microsoft was less effective. They broke themselves up by being late to the internet party.
I see the problem being their power over the authorities. If you pissed of Rockefeller, what was he going to do? Call every gas station and say don't sell you gas?
Google, on the other hand, knows all your porn surfing, and can make up whatever they need. Huge coercion power.
Microsoft was less effective. They broke themselves up by being late to the internet party.
I see the problem being their power over the authorities. If you pissed of Rockefeller, what was he going to do? Call every gas station and say don't sell you gas?
Google, on the other hand, knows all your porn surfing, and can make up whatever they need. Huge coercion power.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:29 pm to Ag Zwin
Different animals.
Google and Facebook aren't your only options. In fact you dont have to use either one for everyday life.
Argument is silly.
Why didn't you list Amazon? You love that prime shite don't you. Because if anything came close to anti-trust it would be Amazon.
Google and Facebook aren't your only options. In fact you dont have to use either one for everyday life.
Argument is silly.
Why didn't you list Amazon? You love that prime shite don't you. Because if anything came close to anti-trust it would be Amazon.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:30 pm to Ag Zwin
Anti-trust is a really fascinating subject, but a short answer to your question: a lot of times it won't come into play when the player at hand gained market share through what is essentially organic growth. In other words, the Googles and Facebooks of the world were revolutionary enough that they brought such immense value to the customer that the "cost" side didn't really matter.
Anti-trust really starts to come into play when you get into M&A (see: Cigna/Anthem or Staples/Office Depot) or outright anti-competitive maneuvers (what, as I recall, Standard was doing, though I am not super-familiar with the business case there). It could be argued that Facebook's acquisition of Instagram was an example, but that's really tough to do considering both services are free to the consumer. A lot of tech companies haven't hit that threshold yet (except Microsoft) because the what they're doing is so new. You have to define the market first before determining anti-trust/anti-competitive maneuvers.
It will be interesting to see what eventually happens because, just like in the Gilded Age (trains, logistics, petroleum, etc.), there are a hell of a lot of demand-side economies of scale (network effects) involved, and the big boys eventually tipped the scales and started doing all sorts of anti-competitive things. Amazon, arguably, might be doing some of that right now, but I don't know if Facebook and Google have approached that threshold yet.
Anti-trust really starts to come into play when you get into M&A (see: Cigna/Anthem or Staples/Office Depot) or outright anti-competitive maneuvers (what, as I recall, Standard was doing, though I am not super-familiar with the business case there). It could be argued that Facebook's acquisition of Instagram was an example, but that's really tough to do considering both services are free to the consumer. A lot of tech companies haven't hit that threshold yet (except Microsoft) because the what they're doing is so new. You have to define the market first before determining anti-trust/anti-competitive maneuvers.
It will be interesting to see what eventually happens because, just like in the Gilded Age (trains, logistics, petroleum, etc.), there are a hell of a lot of demand-side economies of scale (network effects) involved, and the big boys eventually tipped the scales and started doing all sorts of anti-competitive things. Amazon, arguably, might be doing some of that right now, but I don't know if Facebook and Google have approached that threshold yet.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:31 pm to Ag Zwin
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Obtaining or maintaining a monopoly through anticompetitive conduct that harms the market is illegal.
Companies do not have to step aside and provide an on-ramp for their competitors to gain more market share. They only have to refrain from engaging in anticompetitive conduct that would limit market access (which is what Microsoft did, for instance.)
Google and Facebook are big and they are dominant. But as far as anyone knows, they haven't engaged in conduct that would impair competition.
Companies do not have to step aside and provide an on-ramp for their competitors to gain more market share. They only have to refrain from engaging in anticompetitive conduct that would limit market access (which is what Microsoft did, for instance.)
Google and Facebook are big and they are dominant. But as far as anyone knows, they haven't engaged in conduct that would impair competition.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:32 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
I think it worked with Standard Oil
No it didn't. The companies that were standard oil continued to dominate the oil industry and largely merged back into Exxon Mobil over time.
AT&T is arguably stronger now than it was before it was split.
I'm not saying we should not bust up monopolies, I'm saying our current laws for busting up monopolies are either lacking in enforcement or the laws themselves need to be made more effective.
Remember, giving government the power to regulate industry gives the government to pick winners and losers in the market. Monopolies cannot persist absent artificial barriers to entry and government advantages. The power to pick winners and losers, creates a marketplace for regulated parties to attempt to buy their way into being one of those winners.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:34 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Of all goods ordered on-line, Amazon has 43% share.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:34 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Anti-trust is a really fascinating subject, but a short answer to your question: a lot of times it won't come into play when the player at hand gained market share through what is essentially organic growth. In other words, the Googles and Facebooks of the world were revolutionary enough that they brought such immense value to the customer that the "cost" side didn't really matter.
Yep this exactly. (Whole post...it only copied the first paragraph for some reason.)
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:35 pm to MrLarson
quote:
MrLarson
Did you see the specific issue I raised? This is not about where I want to spend my time online. It is about where everyone else does.
Have you ever looked into online advertising? Honest question. Do you have any idea how it really works? I own a company and this is something I am getting a crash course in. I still have a lot to learn, but a clear message I am getting is to just hold my nose and work with them.
The Chive posted similar sentiments last week. LINK
Maybe stop looking for the snarky answer and address the actual issue I raised rather than the one you think I did.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:38 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:36 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
I think it worked with Standard Oil and AT&To. In the case of the latter, it's just that this industry has completely changed now.
Not really.
quote:
I see the problem being their power over the authorities. If you pissed of Rockefeller, what was he going to do? Call every gas station and say don't sell you gas?
Google, on the other hand, knows all your porn surfing, and can make up whatever they need. Huge coercion power.
They do what they've always done, which is get well positioned in the regulatory committees and agencies. Given the money and power they have, nobody else can compete with their influence.
The key is to reduce the regs that keep these people on top. Not add more regs that simplify regulatory capture.
Edit: I don't have any real beef with google. Their terms are clearly stated. Once you send info through their pipes, it ain't yours anymore.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:44 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:36 pm to rocket31
quote:
rocket31
Let's hear your credentials, home slice. I walked out of a lecture with the DoJ anti-trust expert witness in one of the biggest anti-trust cases in American history not less than two hours ago.
Do you have even the slightest clue of what you're talking about here, or are you, as usual, full of shite?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:40 pm to AbuTheMonkey
I actually thought he was just laughing at your name. It does strike me as funny.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:40 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Abu - here's what Standard Oil Trust of NJ did -
a town has 3 service stations, selling gas for 30 cents. SO comes to town, and charges 26 cents. The 3 incumbents stations go out of business in the price war. SO ups the new rate to 34 cents. Rinse and repeat in town after town.
Anti-trust took the name from the term "Trust" in the SO name. The Sherman Act of 1890 law nowhere mentions "trust"
a town has 3 service stations, selling gas for 30 cents. SO comes to town, and charges 26 cents. The 3 incumbents stations go out of business in the price war. SO ups the new rate to 34 cents. Rinse and repeat in town after town.
Anti-trust took the name from the term "Trust" in the SO name. The Sherman Act of 1890 law nowhere mentions "trust"
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:41 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Anti-trust is a really fascinating subject, but a short answer to your question: a lot of times it won't come into play when the player at hand gained market share through what is essentially organic growth. In other words, the Googles and Facebooks of the world were revolutionary enough that they brought such immense value to the customer that the "cost" side didn't really matter.
This. I'm not even sure we want to regulate these guys. Why would we want to reduce the efficacy of these services? If people want more privacy, the market is open for people that are willing to create that product.
We all have some beef with these companies, but not enough to Signal to developers that we will support new players.
Now, broadcast media is something else entirely, and those advantages are not organic in any way.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:43 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Let's hear your credentials, home slice. I walked out of a lecture with the DoJ anti-trust expert witness in one of the biggest anti-trust cases in American history not less than two hours ago.
Do you have even the slightest clue of what you're talking about here, or are you, as usual, full of shite?
Lol. There is a slim chance that anyone else on this board is as close to this issue as you are right now.
Are you interested in cryptocurrency regulation at all?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:43 pm to slam627
quote:
Google and Facebook are big and they are dominant. But as far as anyone knows, they haven't engaged in conduct that would impair competition.
Read the link I posted from The Chive. They would push back on that.
Again, my issue has nothing to do with their power over people surfing. My issue is with their power over what these people find and see when they do.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News