 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | And they are right Did anyone intervieneve when Microsoft owen 85% of their marketshare (computer operation systems)?
If Comcast can expand they should...its called capitalism. ATT, Verizon, and the Satellites are formidale foes, and one will always keep the other from becoming a monopoloy. |
|
| said by baineschile:Did anyone intervieneve when Microsoft owen 85% of their marketshare (computer operation systems)? If Comcast can expand they should...its called capitalism. ATT, Verizon, and the Satellites are formidale foes, and one will always keep the other from becoming a monopoloy. I say let them grow. But to answer your 1st statement, yes the Feds sued MS under monopoly anti-trust laws when they held the huge share of the computer market.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by fAcEtIOUs:yes the Feds sued MS under monopoly anti-trust laws when they held the huge share of the computer market. actually, if memory serves me right (and i was just a young pup back then), wasn't the whole suit brought on by netscape and more of the "browser bundling" rather than just holding a lion's share. it was the _actions_ that ms took that caused the suit, not the size.
q. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by tubbynet:actually, if memory serves me right (and i was just a young pup back then), wasn't the whole suit brought on by netscape and more of the "browser bundling" rather than just holding a lion's share. it was the _actions_ that ms took that caused the suit, not the size. You are correct. It wasn't MS's size; it was how MS used their clout. IE Anti-competitively.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by KrK:You are correct. It wasn't MS's size; it was how MS used their clout. IE Anti-competitively. wow...impressed myself with that one. i think i was maybe 10 or 11 at the time that the investigation really started (it began in like 1996 with the trial not starting until late 1997, early 1998 if memory still serves correctly).
i don't mind the market working and letting those who are successful grow, but the issue comes into play (much like microsoft, ibm, ma bell, etc) how will comcast use its newfound clout? we have already witnessed their failing service, techs who kill people, animals, and fill houses with sewage, and their customer satisfaction numbers are *consistently* towards the bottom. they also engage in collusion within local governments and practice some sleazy (and borderline deceptive) marketing practices. not only that, they will be controlling the information and media that is seen by a large percentage of the us population. little scary.
there is a reason why the us has passed laws and regulations prohibiting corporations from getting too large (and therefore too powerful); they generally don't have the best interest of the consumer at heart.
q. |
|
| What really do "techs who kill people" have to do with anything?
Are you implying that Comcast willingly hired someone that said they planned on killing people?
Should Comcast be able to read minds? Does Comcast have a Minority Report machine, and should they have been able to stop these pre-crimes?
Do you not think there are employees of other companies that kill someone everyday in this world? That these people only get employed by Comcast?
Just because the news reports the really bad stories doesn't mean it's something widespread that any company should be treated differently than other companies. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to tubbynet
AT&T was broken up strictly because of size. |
|
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to tubbynet
said by tubbynet:there is a reason why the us has passed laws and regulations prohibiting corporations from getting too large (and therefore too powerful); they generally don't have the best interest of the consumer at heart. The country's priorities shouldn't be consumerism. Consumerism doesn't equate to prosperity. So your logic about why large companies should be kept smaller is without merit.
There are valid reasons for such caps, in certain industries, and we've seen it very clearly with the economic crisis. The crisis was caused because some financial institutions (specifically) were too large, so when they failed, they represented the chance of too much damage to the overall economy to let the failure progress normally.
Super-large employers have a similar potential impact on the economy, which argues for capping the size (or breaking-up) companies such as the automakers, super-large nationwide retailers, etc.
The criteria for concern is not the impact on consumers, but rather the impact on citizens. They may be the same people, but the priorities that each of those two labels imply are different. Indeed, our government should foster the interests of citizens FIRST, then perhaps the interests of taxpayers, then perhaps investors, then perhaps consumers. Again, consumerism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. |
|
 P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Did anyone intervieneve when Microsoft owen 85% of their marketshare (computer operation systems)? If Comcast can expand they should...its called capitalism. ATT, Verizon, and the Satellites are formidale foes, and one will always keep the other from becoming a monopoloy. how do you sue a company that has a monopoly on one product? force them to stop making the one operating system they make?
i love people who always bring microsoft up. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | The only reason I brought up microsoft, is that at one time, they were truly a monopoly (95%+ market share) |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to tubbynet
It was the actions in the context of their size. "Abusing monopoly power" means they were a monopoly, which they couldn't be without having the vast majority of the OS market. Apple bundling their Safari browser isn't abuse, because they aren't a monopoly.
On the topic of Comcast, I think a 35% limit is more mathematically pleasing, but it seems like a good idea for competition. AT&T should have had a lot more conditions on their merger, I think Martin really was playing favorites, but the correct response would be strictness with both sides going forward. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to P Ness
Once Microsoft controlled the market on the OS, they began integrating products into it that were not part of the core functionality, yet added on to the cost of the product. You could not pay $35 for Windows without IE, Media Player, Paint, Wordpad, etc. You are forced to buy it all or nothing. And let's not even get started on forcing file format changes into Office so people get fed up with conversions and just buy a new version that has marginal benefits....
cw
|
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to bicker
said by bicker: The crisis was caused because some financial institutions (specifically) were too large, so when they failed, they represented the chance of too much damage to the overall economy to let the failure progress normally. LMAO. Where do you get your information. Try understanding the problem before you spout off about that which you clearly have no comprehension of.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Get over yourself. You are entitled to your personal opinion. |
|
