Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

I am more and more certain that there need to be strict legal blocks to the vertical integration of content production, content distribution, and Internet/network services.

Nobody wins when any of these three can be owned by the same interest.

View on HN

I think this is more a question of enforcement then a requirement to actually change any laws. This merger was approved when it clearly shouldn't have been.

The government tried to stop it!

And the government was forced to make their case in court, but the government lost and ATT won. The government is now appealing.

How would you design an alternate system? Government gets to decide with no recourse for the company to make their case?

US anti trust enforcement often looks at consumer harm (which seems to focus on immediate obvious harm, or lack thereof). So adjusting the law such that the anti trust rules are stricter.

The massive consolidation in soo many US industries I think has done a large disservice to the country and long term prospects for the economy by massively reduced competition

Agreed. There's a lot to be said for deciding anti-trust also on the basis of harm to potential new entrants to the market.

The law isnt built for modern companies.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

The courts believed that the merger would not be a problem with our current anti-trust laws. The governments response should be to pass stricter laws that address the concerns of the court.

Perhaps, beyond a given company size, mergers+acquisitions should be considered illegal until proven legal (i.e. the burden of proof should be on the merging companies.)

With a preponderance of evidence standard as the US uses for civil cases, who bears the initial burden of proof really should only matter in the case where neither side can present substantial evidence, since of there is conflicting evidence, the winner should be the same either way.

Courts are too OP. Un-elected officials with 0 accountability getting to override legislation put forth by elected officials seems silly.

I don't know what the 'right' system is, but the current one allows for situations like the one in the article to be perfectly OK and, IMHO, is broken.

An independent judiciary with judicial review of laws is a cornerstone of an effective democracy that ensures minority rights.

Judges are accountable. You just have to impeach them.

> ensures minority rights.

Except when they don't, like in the case of the 'muslim ban' and the specific case here with the creation of a new monopoly.

There was a lot of judicial push back on the Muslim ban. Pretty sure they forced the Trump administration to make significant changes to it before it could be enforced.

We went through this in the early days of movie theaters. Laws were passed forcing separation as you are mentioning. Its a shame we to revisit this over and over again each time technology changes slightly.

Congratulations. We've reached a level of understanding that Americans took for granted in 1890.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

Fascinating about that history is how splitting up standard oil was lucrative for rockefeller, as the combined income of the smaller companies was larger than of the single monopolist. If more of these acquisitions occurred as mere ownership of competing entities instead of trying to roll them all into a single business the overall profit for the shareholders would probably be higher, since the competitors would capture more of the potential market.

>I am more and more certain that there need to be strict legal blocks

Sure. More regulation. Just what we need. Well known to solve every problem known to man.

I'll agree to the first part of your statement, but I'll correct the last: regulation has solved many, many problems known to man, but not every problem. Let's not be hyperbolic here.

I think he was being sarcastic.

I've looked at the HN guidelines, but I'm still confused: is it okay to appropriate Slashdot culture here? Because: whoosh.

Smarter regulation is better than dumber regulation. And some things need regulation.

You're engaging in a slippery slope argument, and I hope no one buys in to your point of view.

Yes. The best government puts in regulations when necessary, with the minimum of side effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com