- 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
re: Breaking: Justice Department preparing to file anti-trust suit against Google
Posted on 6/27/20 at 2:49 am to RobbBobb
Posted on 6/27/20 at 2:49 am to RobbBobb
Questioning the impact of the ATT suit...
Every telecommunication service would still be run by 1 company if that didn't happen. You wouldn't have options to go elsewhere, choose a different provider with a better deal, etc. No pushing for new tech to get an advantage over the others, no price breaks. And when they finally went to cell, they'd have dictated who made the phones, so probably no Iphones etc.
Every telecommunication service would still be run by 1 company if that didn't happen. You wouldn't have options to go elsewhere, choose a different provider with a better deal, etc. No pushing for new tech to get an advantage over the others, no price breaks. And when they finally went to cell, they'd have dictated who made the phones, so probably no Iphones etc.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:24 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Is AT&T still in the home phone market? Because that was what they were sued over ATT was also suffocating the introduction of cell phones. Know anybody that has one of those? You certainly didnt before that lawsuit. So thats what happened to ATTs monopoly
Yeah, they controlled everything, you couldn't even get landline service through your cable company back then. I remember being at their mercy. Every call that I needed to make from home, was a long distance call, even to people a couple miles away, and those calls were expensive. It was cheaper just to drive over to their house and talk in person sometimes.
My first wife, use to call her Mom and her sisters way too much, and we would get these unreal telephone bills. 300 bucks or more, that was a lot back then, and you had to pay it, or you just didn't have a telephone. Breaking that company up, that made me happy as hell.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 5:28 am to joshnorris14
Google needs busting up it's a mynical leftist clap-trap.
That said chrome is the best browser around but google news has turned tabloid since they changed formats.
That said chrome is the best browser around but google news has turned tabloid since they changed formats.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 5:55 am to TigerCruise
quote:
This would take far too much time to explain. Google will help here.
I just read a bunch about it.
Looks like ATT got broken up into 7 or so regional companies? One ended up becoming Verizon and I believe Bell South is still kicking. The rest either went defunct or got gobbled back up by SBC which is now the modern day version of ATT. How is that legal? The government breaks you up and one of the companies just reabsorbs a bunch of the other companies?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 6:06 am to jlovel7
quote:
How is that legal? The government breaks you up and one of the companies just reabsorbs a bunch of the other companies?
That's fine for a company to grow, until they become a monopoly.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 6:08 am to joshnorris14
Breaking: Justice Department has filed anti-trust suit against Google. That’s what the headline should be. How about waiting until you do something from here on out before spouting this bullshite. Do it...... then tell us about it.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 6:09 am to joshnorris14
This ends up at SCOTUS and Roberts sides with Google
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:12 am to joshnorris14
optics before election but good optics
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:16 am to joshnorris14
quote:
Justice Department preparing to file anti-trust suit against Google
Now do Amazon, Microsoft and Facesuck.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:24 am to Tantal
It’s going to be very difficult to make something happen here, but hopefully the courts will recognize the power of big tech and reverse a previous, misguided precedent.
What makes antitrust action against the googles and facebooks of the world so difficult is a ruling from I believe the 70s that says that a monopolist is only acting as a monopoly if they use their market power to raise prices above what would otherwise be a market level. And this is the way that the econ 101 version of monopoly is always taught, right. We see how a monopolist with market power can raise their prices above a perfectly competitive level, thereby creating a deadweight loss and a drain on society.
So the court system takes this introductory model and concludes that if a monopolist is not raising their prices above the perfectly competitive level, then it’s not creating a deadweight loss, and therefore it’s not a drain on consumers or the economy. Problematic, but ok enough logic for a 1970s manufacturing economy.
Problem is, today we are no longer in that economy. We’re in the data economy. And in the data economy, google can give away their product for “free”. And because their product is “free”, they aren’t exercising undue monopoly power in the historical perspective of disproportionately raising prices.
This is going to be the ruling that the court system is going to have to just flat out ignore if we are going to see any change. Clearly google is acting as a monopolist in their anti-competitive practices as they routinely exercise their market power to crush new up and coming companies every single day. That’s flat out terrible for innovation and for our markets. But it’s also not a form of a direct pricing monopoly, so the precedents in the court system will unfortunately be going against the government in this case. Meaning they’ll need to make a damn strong, extensively detailed argument of all of the other ways that google is stifling competition for the courts to overturn our currently legally accepted definition of an illegal monopoly.
What makes antitrust action against the googles and facebooks of the world so difficult is a ruling from I believe the 70s that says that a monopolist is only acting as a monopoly if they use their market power to raise prices above what would otherwise be a market level. And this is the way that the econ 101 version of monopoly is always taught, right. We see how a monopolist with market power can raise their prices above a perfectly competitive level, thereby creating a deadweight loss and a drain on society.
So the court system takes this introductory model and concludes that if a monopolist is not raising their prices above the perfectly competitive level, then it’s not creating a deadweight loss, and therefore it’s not a drain on consumers or the economy. Problematic, but ok enough logic for a 1970s manufacturing economy.
Problem is, today we are no longer in that economy. We’re in the data economy. And in the data economy, google can give away their product for “free”. And because their product is “free”, they aren’t exercising undue monopoly power in the historical perspective of disproportionately raising prices.
This is going to be the ruling that the court system is going to have to just flat out ignore if we are going to see any change. Clearly google is acting as a monopolist in their anti-competitive practices as they routinely exercise their market power to crush new up and coming companies every single day. That’s flat out terrible for innovation and for our markets. But it’s also not a form of a direct pricing monopoly, so the precedents in the court system will unfortunately be going against the government in this case. Meaning they’ll need to make a damn strong, extensively detailed argument of all of the other ways that google is stifling competition for the courts to overturn our currently legally accepted definition of an illegal monopoly.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:25 am to Tantal
quote:Not out of business but can you name any other companies that provided phone service prior to the AT&T and baby Bells being divested? Are there any now?
Is AT&T out of business?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:27 am to Tantal
quote:
Well, I just paid them for my cell phone, cable, and internet. They've also got their name on The Deathstar/Jerryworld, so I'm assuming that the government didn't exactly break them.
You need to come back into this thread to say you don’t know what the hell you are talking about
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
Posted on 6/27/20 at 9:35 am to auggie
quote:
My first wife, use to call her Mom and her sisters way too much, and we would get these unreal telephone bills. 300 bucks or more, that was a lot back then, and you had to pay it, or you just didn't have a telephone. Breaking that company up, that made me happy as hell.
I dated a girl in Lacombe for one whole month in the early 80’s. I ended that shite when I got the phone bill and found out that calling Lacombe from Covington was long distance.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)