It was done while everyone was looking, and it was explicitly authorized because the market had changed.
Wireless had proliferated, and the value add segment of the vertical had moved (from circuit-switched lines and long distance) to the Internet, where (pre-Time Warner merger in laughably late 2016) ATT didn't compete.
There's also the two other surviving "small" clumps of Bells called Verizon (Bell Atlantic, NYNEX + GTE) & Lumen (US West + Qwest + CenturyLink).
If we want to gripe about the current state of the US ISP market, post-ATT re-mergers shouldn't be top of mind. Exclusive franchise agreements, lack of common and accessible conduit / poles, lack of community-funded competitors, and bundling are above it.
Even a hypothetical worst-current-case scenario where 3+ of the majors ATT, Verizon, CenturyLink, Comcast, & Spectrum were offered at every house, because they all had access to each other's last-mile at non-discriminatory rates would solve current issues.
Things were kind of going ok with that!
That all got royally hosed when pro-big-business Supreme Court activism sided with Verizon's stance that they Verizon should have monopoly rights to fiber, in Verizon vs FCC (2002). Now suddenly telecomms could go back to their nasty old ways, which they have.
For example, if Apple is forcing developers to use their payments SDK to collect 30%, why can't a government agency just force them to stop?
Maybe there was a long official investigation by antitrust regulators, and that kicked off a long bureaucratic process that ends in a mandate restricting Apple from doing a very specific thing, maybe with an appeal/review process, expiration date, etc.
No need to get a bill passed that changes the law for everyone. A smaller company could still do that same thing, but it doesn't matter because due to their size, they're not immune to competitive forces. If anything, they'll have a harder time pulling it off because developers can get a better deal with Apple thanks to the new restriction.
Idk how the law works and whether the relevant regulators are able to do something like this. So maybe this comment is stupid, but it makes sense in my layman head at least.
iOS has 60% of the US market[1], and Android 40%. The App Store has 100% more revenue than the Play Store[2], and the two are responsible for over 99% of all app sales. In the US, Apple has the majority of market share in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market.
Both Apple and Google have a duopoly in mobile operating systems, and they leverage that duopoly to maintain their duopoly in the mobile app distribution market. To continue the chain, they then leverage that duopoly to dominate the mobile app payment market, as well.
Further, the colloquial definition of monopoly doesn't with regard to antitrust laws:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
(I am not a corporate lawyer) Hopefully didn't take editorial liberties with your quote, but wanted it to stand on its own.
My understanding is that the US, in contrast to many other advanced economies unofficially or officially, takes a dim legal view of singling out a company for any purpose.
Either a company is acting within the law, or they are breaking the law. What company doesn't (shouldn't) matter.
Which I think is wise as a standing order, as detailed specific-company intervention renders it more subject to politics, etc. Better to stick to the laws, and then allow the courts to apply them evenly.