US House or Reps REJECTS net neutrality

[Cuivienen]

If AT&T was indeed becoming inefficient, new companies would gradually take their place. Giants who basically had monopolies have been surpassed in the past. Look at Ford for exemple.

You cite a false example. Ford was founded in 1903. GM was founded in 1908. The two competed with each other practically from the beginning; Ford was never a monopoly as cars were still a novelty in the company's earliest days.

Being the largest company does not a monopoly make, but being more than three times the size of all other competitors put together does.


Also, if the government had originally instituted non-free market policies, would it not be a good idea, when abandoning those policies, to stir the pot in order to allow the market more immediate freedom to settle itself? Surely you don't believe that AT&T would have allowed any real semblance of a free market had it been left intact.

 

[luiz]

You cite a false example. Ford was founded in 1903. GM was founded in 1908. The two competed with each other practically from the beginning; Ford was never a monopoly as cars were still a novelty in the company's earliest days.

Being the largest company does not a monopoly make, but being more than three times the size of all other competitors put together does.

I was under the impression that by, say, 1909 Ford was indeed 3 times or more bigger than all competitors in the US. I might be wrong, though.

Also, if the government had originally instituted non-free market policies, would it not be a good idea, when abandoning those policies, to stir the pot in order to allow the market more immediate freedom to settle itself? Surely you don't believe that AT&T would have allowed any real semblance of a free market had it been left intact.

What power would they have not to allow?
If they were inefficient sooner or later somebody would start competing with them, if the government allowed.