Re:Google and Facebook are monopolies. Does it matter? [audio]
by stcredzero on Friday November 16, 2018 @12:18PM
(#18470080)
The situation is far more like not being able to choose another broadband provider, with network effects taking the place of local cable regulations.
I can picture a scenario where some sites have an insurmountable advantage because of compromised network neutrality. I'm very sure that in that case, the winners would be crowing about how, "the market has spoken," when the reality is that the market is broken.
Re:Google and Facebook are monopolies. Does it matter? [audio]
by SilasX on Friday November 16, 2018 @02:13PM
(#18471164)
And yes, a broadband (often) would be an example of a monopoly provider. My point was that, "gosh, we want a better alternative" is not necessarily a reasonable desire or evidence of monopoly power.
Re:Google and Facebook are monopolies. Does it matter? [audio]
by stcredzero on Friday November 16, 2018 @07:29PM
(#18473079)
"Gosh, we want a better alternative, but alternatives keep on getting squashed," is a pretty strong indicator. Doesn't every monopoly claim that the situation is due to market forces and that they're not a monopoly?
Toy example: if everyone demands at least $30/pound for some risky kind of coal mining, because it's such a pain to do and they'd rather a) rest or b) do easier work at any lower price ... that doesn't mean coal miners are colluding or that coal mining is a monopoly.
In that case, if you want a $29/pound alternative, your desire is economically unrealistic.
If there's a single coal miner that does it for $29/pound -- and is thus the most efficient one -- that miner will dominate the (tiny, niche) market. But it would not rightly be called a "monopoly", but "a single provider who is legitimately better and would lose business if he started to falter".
Telling me that someone currently dominates a market does not prove monopoly power.