Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (20613)	6/12/2000 10:00:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I guess they completely forgot AT&T was a government enforced and protected monopoly. The government did not create the AT&T monopoly, In the beginning telephone competed with telegraph. It is interesting conjecture that if the telegraph were free to compete it would have emphasised it's on-off nature to bring digital control devices into the market decades earlier. Stock Ticker was among the first. TP (Besides, AT&T wasn't a monopoly, they always had a couple of houses near Dallas hooked to GTE to prove they had competition)

To: greenspirit who wrote (20613)	6/12/2000 10:21:00 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Microsoft is not a monopoly. It's an oligopoly. The only ones not screaming for their break-up, are the consumers who enjoy their products. >>> The only true way for a monopoly to operate is with the assistance of the government. The Standard Oil, Telephone Co., U.S. Steel, Railroads, IBM, Postoffice can only continue to be effective is with the power of the government to legislate restrictive laws claiming to be for the benefit of the people. The only company I can think of with monopoly powers is DeBeers with diamonds. That monopoly is slowly losing its power with additional sources of diamonds coming into the market. daverose

To: greenspirit who wrote (20613)	6/12/2000 10:28:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769670

MSFT is a monopoly within certain markets, but that doesn't mean it violated Anti-Trust laws. Remember, Anti-Trust laws primarily impact when a company hurts consumers - they were not designed to protect competitors. There is scant evidence MSFT hurt consumers, in fact all evidence points to the opposite. Further, the Clinton "Justice" Dept's remedies surely would hurt consumers. btw, I believe it was a National Journal editor that was on CNBC last Friday saying that WA's GOP will benefit hugely from the Clinton-AlGore the Junior attack on MSFT. More news from your state: Ex-candidate convicted Former congressional candidate David Giles, a Democrat who lost races in Washington state against Republican Rod Chandler in 1986 and 1990, has been convicted of raping and molesting a teen-age girl. A 12-member jury found Giles guilty last week. In December, a mistrial was declared after a jury deadlocked 6-6. No sentencing date was set, but King County prosecutors said Giles should be sent to prison for at least 11 years, the Seattle Times reports. washtimes.com btw, did you see: Message 13857873

To: greenspirit who wrote (20613)	6/12/2000 10:38:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>Notice how the Justice Department lawyers keep using AT&T as an example of why this is happening. I guess they completely forgot AT&T was a government enforced and protected monopoly. You are correct, the two are opposites. The AT&T breakup was part of the massive deregulation of telecommunications which effectively launched the internet revolution. That's what Reps do. The MSFT breakup is the introduction of regulation into the "new economy" by those who want political exactions (tribute). That's what Dems do.