Yea, except it's not a permanent solution to the problem. Ma Bell was shattered into pieces, but those pieces have reformed and are, arguably, more powerful now due to bonehead SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United.

Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it isn't always beneficial to do that.

Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in the 90s due to Windows, because they were slowed down slightly it allowed Google, Apple, Amazon and others to crop up to compete. I'd argue we got something out of the Microsoft monopoly (desktop + internet prevalence), something out of the first AT&T monopoly (telephone lines, software, Bell Labs, C++, modern applications) and more. When they are slowed down the competition also brings benefits in Apple + Google for mobile for instance and Google + Amazon for cloud computing. Microsoft became a competitor again and it works better for consumers and developers now.

It is definitely time to put some speed bumps on AT&T unless they want to actually increase network capabilities rather than slow them down. ISPs need to be innovative and expanding networks otherwise more competition should be added. A truly competitive ISP would not be so anti net neutrality, they would win with product improvements.

Monopolies or big fish can be beneficial, until they start limiting other competitive threats through use of their power/size rather than better products and consumer benefits. When they use their size to bring benefits they bide their time and deserve the top slot and privileged market position. When they get lazy/anti-innovative and they use their size to hold back others, then it is time to hold them back a bit to increase competition.

Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself in commercial is when safety is a concern

There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.

So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.

> Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete

The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry.

Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger.

Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be righteous that can ultimately cause the most harm. They prey on good willing empathetic people to get them emotionally distracted by the slight of hand that takes place when Billions are on the line.

John Locke might have said babies are born with a tabula rasa. But I suspect genetics play a deep roll in our brain chemistry dictating, for example, why we might take offense to something others find funny. But we can't forget that natural selection applies to Humans too and therefore most humans will save themselves first. The genetic instincts we possess align us to a more Hobbsian tone, that we are Nasty, brutish and short.

Nope. You (and most libertarian/capitalist cheerleaders, to be fair) whooshed on a classic scenario: Microsoft has no reason to innovate when they're a monopoly. It gets worse. Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea. Startup Y has a brilliant idea, but they get smarter, they don't sell, and then Microsoft copies their tech and outcompetes them with their war chest. Then they kill the technology. Startup Z has a brilliant idea, but they get even smarter and never bother bringing it to market because Microsoft will just kill it.

Go capitalism.

Startup W has a cool product, but Microsoft threatens to raise the price of Windows on any company that pre-installs it. The technology dies in obscurity.

So it goes.

this scenario has literally never happened. I wish I could downvote this stupid comment because it's moronic.

Microsoft wanted to kill of upstart Netscape so they changed the Windows NT license and pricing. NT Workstation became limited by the license to a very small number of clients, regardless of what server software you wanted to run on it.

For more than a handful of clients you were required to purchase a much more expensive server edition which was basically the same, but included IIS, Microsoft's web server. In other words, to legally use Netscape's (or anyone else's) web server on Windows NT, you still had to buy Microsoft's web server.

See also: http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/differences_nt.html

> this scenario has literally never happened.

It's very similar to what happened with Netscape, except they simply prohibited it rather than increasing price because of it.

To the contrary: it happened to _my_ company, with a minor detail that I omitted: what they objected to was having the software preinstalled _and visible on the desktop._ The end result was the same.

Our company sued Microsoft over it. There was a settlement.

> Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea.

Why can't X_2 bring the same idea to market again?

Because Big Corp has many advantages, such as being the owner of Startup X's intellectual property.

So how did Netflix dethrone Comcast if Goliath always wins?

You're stretcing that analogy way to thin. Comcast took the strategy of continuing to push hardware cable boxes on people because it made them twice as much revenue as netflix despite netflix's high gains in Q4 2017. Now that they've successfully eleminated net neutrality, it will be fairly easy to slow down or charge netflix more for peering and if they successfully buy up hulu / fox to integrate their own original productions it will give them full vertical integration.

Naw, 5G will finally end the telecom monopoly on the utility poles. Netflix beat blockbuster by being smarter, Microsoft lost its edge in mobile by being complacent. Monopolies in a non-crony version of capitalism are not bad in their own right.

And how long before 5G hits most of their markets?

Naw, 5G will finally end the telecom monopoly on the utility poles. Netflix bet blockbuster by being smarter, Microsoft lost its edge in mobile by being complacent. Monopolies in a non-crony version of capitalism are not bad in their own right.

Then how did Netflix dethrone Comcast? Goliath doesn't always win. The person who makes the superior product wins. Apple is almost never first to market with an idea anymore because they simply wait and do it better. New companies with better ideas are constantly upsetting the apple cart. For god sakes take a look at the mighty brick and mortar stores like Macy's, JCPenny, and nostrums once thought invincible. Goliath only wins, in the minds of people like you who think they can't be beaten.

The permanent solution is never "one and done".

The solution is keeping on top of these things.

Just like every generation has to figure out growing up for themselves.

Every generation has to rein in abuses, or suffer the consequences.

Good governance is not a set of laws. It's governing.

Admittedly, right now, things are looking a little grim, in the U.S. Then again, half to two-thirds of the eligible population doesn't vote.

Solutions don’t need to be permanent if they can be repeated. A truly permanent solution would be to add them to the proverbial list of “they’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes,” but I’d rather see less permanent, less drastic solutions that still yield the desired results.

They can only be repeated with a competent DOJ/administration. Else, they will be able to stick around much longer and dig in deeper. And if the system allows them to influence the administration, then the solution (or option) is permanently destroyed.

In the absence of a competent system there is no solution, permanent or otherwise. It’s like trying to secure your laptop against someone who has physical possession of it; you can’t, they own it now.

In what sense is AT&T a monopoly anything close to what Ma Bell was in its glory days?

It's not too far off. See the following infographic:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-histo...

The only baby-Bells missing from that merger chart are NYNEX and Bell Atlantic which combined and became Verizon.

That has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Anti-trust law is not about the geographic spread of a company. What services are they a monopoly in? How are they abusing that monopoly power? What would be different if there were more competitors, or if they weren’t allowed to make those mergers?

Nothing in my comment had anything to do with "geographic spread" neither did I state they were a monopoly. My comment clearly states "it's not too far off."

Anti-trust law concerns the ability of a company to constrain competition. AT&T as the largest satellite provider(DirecTV) the seconds largest Cell Phone provider by customers and wireless spectrum holdings and now also owner of one of the largest media/content companies is very much in a position to "constrain competition. This potential to constrain competition was at the root of their failed $39 billion bid to buy T-Mobile 7 years ago.

It was a fertile field they found there following the temporary dissolution of Ma. GOP on the left of me, Neo-Liberal Democrats to the right, stuck in the middle with you!

there are no permanent solutions don't let perfect become the enemy of the good.

I would suggest the US crack down on lobbying and take a look at how politicians finance their election campaigns. Money corrupts.

This is it.

All we can do is dissuade and encourage.

What you are saying is when your hired goon fails to steal your neighbours cows for you, the cops should do it for you. ATT has not bombed Sacramento to achieve this, they have achieved this fair and square the same way farmers have managed to get some water from the greedy politicians over last 5 years or the same way teachers union in California has managed to suck our blood. This language of "break them up" is a violent language of thugs and should not have a place on a civilised forum such as this. (Not to mention as Mr/s. Dang would inform you it is not good idea to start political fights. But he also happens to be selective and likely he will give you an upvote and the warning to me)

> 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality.

Does not matter. That is irrelevant. Most people voted for Hillary but Trump is the president. You have to look at the rules of the game. Are those 83% people willing to change their vote in favour of a pro-net-neutrality politician during elections ? If not then even if that number is 100% it is irrelevant.

You're right, the number is irrelevant. But it shouldn't be, should it.

There is no set of politicians or party to turn to that the people could be confident are morally sound. The unfortunate nature of hunting power is the scum that it attracts.