| When does it stop? If this is allowed to go thru then I believe the FCC and the dept in charge of anti-trust should be disolved. Might as well let intel, amd, nvidia, & cisco merge too. And to finish it off let Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Google,& Apple merge too. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Micro$oft already owns a chunk of Apple.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to ossito16
Where exactly is the anti-trust that you are concerned about? There will still be competition...not that anyone ever likes to consider satellite providers in their competition arguments. |
|
 Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by openbox9:Where exactly is the anti-trust that you are concerned about? There will still be competition...not that anyone ever likes to consider satellite providers in their competition arguments. Satellite is competitive when it comes to video, but not internet. Internet service has atrocious latency issues due to the satellites being 22,500 miles high in the sky.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to en102
said by en102:Micro$oft already owns a chunk of Apple. Owned... Not any longer.
IIRC, Microsoft sold their non-voting shares several years ago...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Jim Gurd
Not disputing the latency. This thread is really questioning the antitrust comment made above. You support my statement regarding competition and that there isn't an antitrust concern with AT&T purchasing a sat TV provider. |
|
| reply to en102
said by en102:Micro$oft already owns a chunk of Apple. They sold that portion years ago. What would be interesting is if Apple started buying up MS stock.... With their market cap, they could get darn close to 51% of MS. Then things could get interesting. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Not disputing the latency. This thread is really questioning the antitrust comment made above. You support my statement regarding competition and that there isn't an antitrust concern with AT&T purchasing a sat TV provider. I believe the antitrust falls into the realm of bandwidth ownership. They have the copper lines, U-verse fiber, and 700mhz spectrum, now they are going after another medium of communication (maybe even Dobson Communications - largest independent wireless provider). It is the same thing as one company owning a piece of all forms of transportation. Shipping, air, railroads, and trucking. If it owns a good enough piece of the individual transportation networks it is a matter of time before they start to become the monster. Look at Micro$oft, of course they were not the only operating system around, but when they started to provide media players, browsers, word processors, etc. they got tossed into the antitrust pit. |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by ossito16:I believe the antitrust falls into the realm of bandwidth ownership. They have the copper lines, U-verse fiber, and 700mhz spectrum, Did I miss the announcement about the 700 MHz spectrum? Other companies have the things that you mentioned so I'm not seeing that issue.said by ossito16:Look at Micro$oft, of course they were not the only operating system around, but when they started to provide media players, browsers, word processors, etc. they got tossed into the antitrust pit. There were other reasons why Microsoft was sued, such as forcing OEMs to play along with certain tactics. The tying of media player, and IE to the OS was a BS part of the allegation IMO. Every other OS that I've touched does similar things. So, back to your original antitrust statement, unless AT&T starts to force OEMs into non-favoring situations or they start to use their market strength in an anticompetitive manner, I don't see the antitrust issues. |
|
