They’re not monopolies.
THEY’RE NOT MONOPOLIES.
Transport? I work for a big “transport” company. They’re very careful to not be a monopoly, having had a rather high-profile run-in with the issue. Google is getting out of the fiber business (only used it to scare other transport companies into improving). SpaceX literally launched the test for a redefining transport competitor a few days ago. There’s lots of competition, and lots of change to come.
Directory/search? You have plenty of options. Maybe not as good as Google, but not because Google has some unfair advantage. Basic search capability has actually become simple enough to implement that it’s a senior programing project.
Content? Gobs of options. People treat FB & Twitter like they’re something special, but they’re not. Someone could easily set up a Twitter competitor, without the censorship.
THEY’RE NOT MONOPOLIES. There’s no special treatment, no domineering access to limited resources.
And breaking up Ma Bell was, in retrospect, stupid.
“And breaking up Ma Bell was, in retrospect, stupid.”
If it wasn’t for the break-up of Ma Bell, you’d be accessing Free Republic via x.25...on Bell Terminals.
I’ve been in the network business for decades and have seen both sides of it.
On what basis do you assert that break-up was dumb?
2. They become monopolies when they cross categories...or own everything significant in a particular category.
Google owning end devices, OS, search, email, new, youtube etc. is a monopoly by every legal definition. Especially when they are the dominant player in more than one category.
In your case, Cisco smartly avoided monopoly status by NOT buying everything that routed or switched and not expanding into content, transport etc.
First, you're mis-characterizing the problem with these social companies.
What they're doing is setting out the same terms of service for all users– which amount to a contract– then picking and choosing winners amongst those users. There is a real contract here: in using social media you are trading information about your habits in exchange for use of their platform. By favoring some users over others– going so far as to suppress free speech and association– without informing those users, they're denying some users their contractual rights.
Worse, they're doing this while favoring political parties to influence elections.
If you can't see the problem with this, you only have to consider the grievances of the workers who have to pay union dues which go to politics they oppose. It's true that no one if forcing you to use facebook, but according to their own terms of service users expect to be treated equally. Not so.
And breaking up Ma Bell was, in retrospect, stupid.
The breakup of Ma Bell led directly (in less than 10 years) to the rise of the cell phone and the internet, and the ability of everyone to communicate with anyone the world over for a tiny fraction of what it cost only a few years ago.
I think ctdonath2 you may be on the wrong website.
Worth repeating.