83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. [1]
AT&T == Anti-trust time.
[1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...
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.
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.
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.
Go capitalism.
Why can't X_2 bring the same idea to market again?
So it goes.
It's very similar to what happened with Netscape, except they simply prohibited it rather than increasing price because of 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
Our company sued Microsoft over it. There was a settlement.
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.
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.
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.
All we can do is dissuade and encourage.
> 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.
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.