> while nobody was looking

It was done while everyone was looking, and it was explicitly authorized because the market had changed.

Wireless had proliferated, and the value add segment of the vertical had moved (from circuit-switched lines and long distance) to the Internet, where (pre-Time Warner merger in laughably late 2016) ATT didn't compete.

There's also the two other surviving "small" clumps of Bells called Verizon (Bell Atlantic, NYNEX + GTE) & Lumen (US West + Qwest + CenturyLink).

If we want to gripe about the current state of the US ISP market, post-ATT re-mergers shouldn't be top of mind. Exclusive franchise agreements, lack of common and accessible conduit / poles, lack of community-funded competitors, and bundling are above it.

Even a hypothetical worst-current-case scenario where 3+ of the majors ATT, Verizon, CenturyLink, Comcast, & Spectrum were offered at every house, because they all had access to each other's last-mile at non-discriminatory rates would solve current issues.

Common carrier laws established in the 1996 Telecommunications Act were doing a good job insuring that ISPs were competitive, by requiring regulated, bulk wholesale access to local loop elements to competitive (non-incumbent) carriers. Most cities in the US had a wide variety of DSL options, which was possible because of this common carrier system.

Things were kind of going ok with that!

That all got royally hosed when pro-big-business Supreme Court activism sided with Verizon's stance that they Verizon should have monopoly rights to fiber, in Verizon vs FCC (2002). Now suddenly telecomms could go back to their nasty old ways, which they have.

I wonder why the DOD/FTC/whatever can't/won't impose specific restrictions on companies in order to correct anti-trust issues? That seems a lot less drastic and risky than a break-up.

For example, if Apple is forcing developers to use their payments SDK to collect 30%, why can't a government agency just force them to stop?

Maybe there was a long official investigation by antitrust regulators, and that kicked off a long bureaucratic process that ends in a mandate restricting Apple from doing a very specific thing, maybe with an appeal/review process, expiration date, etc.

No need to get a bill passed that changes the law for everyone. A smaller company could still do that same thing, but it doesn't matter because due to their size, they're not immune to competitive forces. If anything, they'll have a harder time pulling it off because developers can get a better deal with Apple thanks to the new restriction.

Idk how the law works and whether the relevant regulators are able to do something like this. So maybe this comment is stupid, but it makes sense in my layman head at least.

Being large is not illegal. Having a monopoly in a specific product is not illegal. The standard by which the antitrust officials judge companies is whether the company controls a sufficient part of the market such that the consumer is harmed. The problem with the current regulations with respect to Google/Facebook is that their products are "free" to the "consumer," and free can't be harmful (harm is higher prices). The state attorney generals complaint against Google tries to recast the "consumer" as advertisers. The reason Apple and Amazon get a pass is that within their "markets" they are still relatively small. For Apple, their market would be all cell phones (or in the Epic case the Apple lawyers define the market as all game platforms). Since they don't have a majority of these markets and consumers are free to switch within the market they can't be forced to change behavior. "iPhone" is not a market by antitrust definition. Amazon places itself in the total retail market where they are still less that 10%. As the law is currently written and interpreted most of what big tech does is not a violation of antitrust laws -- the laws do need to be changed for everyone.

> For Apple, their market would be all cell phones (or in the Epic case the Apple lawyers define the market as all game platforms). Since they don't have a majority of these markets and consumers are free to switch within the market they can't be forced to change behavior.

iOS has 60% of the US market[1], and Android 40%. The App Store has 100% more revenue than the Play Store[2], and the two are responsible for over 99% of all app sales. In the US, Apple has the majority of market share in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market.

Both Apple and Google have a duopoly in mobile operating systems, and they leverage that duopoly to maintain their duopoly in the mobile app distribution market. To continue the chain, they then leverage that duopoly to dominate the mobile app payment market, as well.

Further, the colloquial definition of monopoly doesn't with regard to antitrust laws:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...

[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

To be more specific, the standard now is "whether the consumer is harmed" - which is notoriously hard to prove. It used to be "whether the competition is hampered" - which is much easier to prove, hence why anti-trust was much more aggressive back then. And why big biz gradually lobbied the new standard through.

That’s what Apple says, but isn’t it a bit early to conclude that Epic’s arguments (relevantly, that Apple is illegally monopolising the market for iOS app distribution) are doomed to fail?

> why can't a government agency just force [a specific business] to stop [doing a specific thing]?

(I am not a corporate lawyer) Hopefully didn't take editorial liberties with your quote, but wanted it to stand on its own.

My understanding is that the US, in contrast to many other advanced economies unofficially or officially, takes a dim legal view of singling out a company for any purpose.

Either a company is acting within the law, or they are breaking the law. What company doesn't (shouldn't) matter.

Which I think is wise as a standing order, as detailed specific-company intervention renders it more subject to politics, etc. Better to stick to the laws, and then allow the courts to apply them evenly.

Thats true but interregnum period between the old bell and the new bell brought us a great deal of innovation and positive changes to communications.

I wouldn't say that's because of Ma Bell's. More like in spite of it.

The real solution is just to not allow them to merge in the first place. Anti trust regulations need teeth first.

I don't think that will ever happen as long as "free market" is sacrosanct in the US. I think it would be possible to push the idea of a "fair market", that is one that has the benefits of free market competition without the disdain for the concept of regulation, but nobody seems to have attempt that yet.